Mod chips and retro consoles, the moral choice?

johnboysligo

Ok so legal standpoints aside would you buy and use a mod chip's or similar devices for your older consoles with the intention of pirating older games?

Ive just recently ordered a mod chip for my Gamecube for obvious reasons and the moral side of me crept up during the night and said "Should you really pirate these games" my frugal side beat the moral side of me to an inch of its life with my empty wallet soon after but I'm just wondering where a mod chip fits into most retro collections?

Sparks43

Mod chip legal
its your console so if you wanted to smash it thats fine too

Piracy is immoral illegal stupid and it will make you go to hell :mad:

johnboysligo

Sparks43 wrote: »

Piracy is immoral illegal stupid and it will make you go to hell :mad:

Hang on a minute here these games are (for lack of a better phrase) out of print so its not like the companies who own the games will get any money from the sale of second hand games should I or anyone else build a "legit" collection. plus use a , otherwise you're just calling me stupid and I might just cry cause the big man from the interweb insulted me.

Myrddin

I tend to justify the use of said chips for trying out games, likely expensive ones, that I honestly don't know if I'd like or not. If I do, I buy them, if not, I consider it a lesson learned.

Also there are other perfectly legitimate uses such as regional exclusives which will become available to you, & also fan translations are a big thing too.

djsim101

This is an interesting one indeed. I have always, and will always contiune to buy and build on my retro and new age collection.

However........ I have been known to play one or two backups. For instanse, my beloved Saturn. Import games can cost an arm and a leg, while it is pretty easy to source these games online in digital format.

Its like running mame and playing the roms,isn't that illegal as well...and lets be honest, everyone does it. :pac:

Retr0gamer

I say there's nothinh wrong with it. These games are unavailable to you anyway and the money isn't going to the developers or publishers, it's going to some random bloke on ebay. If the game gets rereleased on something like PSN or XBLA then I'll buy it but otherwise there's no other way to give your money to the original devs.

Sparks43

johnboysligo wrote: »

Hang on a minute here these games are (for lack of a better phrase) out of print so its not like the companies who own the games will get any money from the sale of second hand games should I or anyone else build a "legit" collection. plus use a , otherwise you're just calling me stupid and I might just cry cause the big man from the interweb insulted me.

Jaysis no wonder Paul Cook pissed back over to England


*For the A+R members who dont know football Paul Cook was the Ex Manager of Sligo Rovers he didnt like boulder dash so good riddance i say

CiDeRmAn

Oddly enough, I don't tend to mod-chip older consoles, except to region mod them.
So thats why the PS and the MD are chipped, the Saturn in chipped because there is a multitude of games out there, from Japan, that I'll never be able to afford, and I want to play them.
I have a chipped Wii for homebrew and because the bulk of the games on it are pants, I have spent enough money on games over the years so I don't feel guilty at all.
Neither the PS2 or 360 are chipped, I'm happy to buy games as per normal.
The PS3, when it was alive, wasn't altered in anyway either.

My experience with the PSone back when it was just the PS was that I ended up with a stack of games on CD-Rs and ended playing few of them, they being valueless as I didn't have any investment in them, aside from the cost of a black CD, same thing happened the first time with the Xbox and DC, ended up with massive collections of seldom played games.

Now I mostly buy games and much happier I am too....

K.O.Kiki

Modchips, software piracy & emulation are morally sound.

Because if we didn't have them, all those programs on floppy disks would be gone, forever, due to DRM and publishers' unwillingness to work with libraries.

Great article on PCWorld blog

o1s1n

1 - If it's a mass produced console worth absolutely nothing more than the plastic it's made of - yes of course. Modding it is no loss to anyone.

2 - If it's a super rare console with a bit of history/importance associated with it then no way.

If you're talking about morals, feck morals, second hand sales don't go to anyone involved with the game.

Dr Bob

From a collector point of view I'll always try and buy originals.
From a "moral" point of view , I'll generally use "teh Romz" if
a/ I own the original
b/ I own a non working original.
c/ the owner has made it freeware
d/I own a new media copy of it (i.e. ps2,xbox arcade compilations, VC, PSN etc)
e/ ok if its a super rare out of print japanese game that I have no hope of buying I might emulate it , but if I can get a reasonabley priced copy I will try and pick it up.
What with the youtube channel and all I try and stick to those rules if I can, an example is when I wanted to show the MAME arcade version of Outrun, I was able to justify it with a copy if Shenmue 2 , which has a modified copy of the outrun rom included (it has all the ferrari stuff removed btw)as part of the game.
Thats all from an ethical point of view though legally all the roms out there are pretty much illegal , in fact in a lot of cases selling or buying a second hand copy of a game is ileagal too (usually something in the legal blurb at the end of the manual , in fairness though I dont think this is something that'd ever hold up in court in most countries..)

Oh yeah , in a few case the companies that made the games still exist and actually keep an eye out for the copyrighted works , some ..like Bill hogue will let you download it for free..others like First star , still actually sell the games (yes..Boulderdash!!)

Doge

johnboysligo wrote: »

Hang on a minute here these games are (for lack of a better phrase) out of print so its not like the companies who own the games will get any money from the sale of second hand games should I or anyone else build a "legit" collection. plus use a , otherwise you're just calling me stupid and I might just cry cause the big man from the interweb insulted me.

Your sarcasm detector seemed to be offline when reading his post!

But yeah,
nobody involved Nintendo will profiteer from you buying Gamecube games these days.

There's absolutely no need to feel guilty.

johnboysligo

waveform wrote: »

Your sarcasm detector seemed to be offline when reading his post!

Yours seems to be on the blink as well, Lidl sarcasm detectors eh good for nothing.

Myrddin

johnboysligo wrote: »

Yours seems to be on the blink as well, Lidl sarcasm detectors eh good for nothing.

My one isn't the best but it works sometimes. I got it in Aldi

o1s1n

Buying sarcasm detectors in German stores? Probably not the best ideas..:P

The Last Bandit

If the console is out of support and no longer a revenue source for the company then mod away - otherwise its battle for your own internal moral calculator to figure out.

I think there are two parts to this argument. Current gen and older gen games. When it comes to current gen games, the attitude i have for the most part is to support the developers. I'll buy the majority of my games new, keep the ones i love and that i know I'll play again, and trade the rest if they're not worth keeping for replay value or whatever. I don't rip off people who are developing for the current hardware. That way the best developers make money, and the standard of development for the current platforms is kept high. I WILL look for good value, but i WON'T break copyright to do it.

But here's the thing. Games are expensive and buying all new for every system that's ever been out there just isn't an option, so once something is past-gen or retro, and the revenue stream has by and large dried up for the developer i have absolutely no problem with people keeping a game alive by using backed up or downloaded copies of it. In fact, the argument could even be made that the rise of emulation and modding has actually helped developers to make new money off of otherwise long dead IPs and fund their newer, more expensive projects, thus strengthening the industry as a whole.

Look at Capcom as an example. Capcom , for anyone who doesn't know, is a past master at selling the same IP multiple times to the same customers (the street fighter series is a prime example). Their arcade 8 and 16 bit fighting and platforming titles have had a huge re-interest level of late, and they have a whole bunch of compilation, re-issue, anniversary, re-jig, HD-remix, and so on titles out.

These games are turning a profit for them off the back of arcade titles from 20 odd years ago, for a minimal cost, and many people argue that game-buying punters in general would never have had enough interest in them even justify them being re-released if it wasn't for projects like MAME, etc. sparking people's interest in retro games over the last few years.

I couldn't tell you how many different versions (and i mean LEGIT versions, not rip-offs) of the different street fighter games I've bought for multiple platforms down the years. I still up to recently bought re-issues of the exact same games to take advantage of HD, or Xbox live or whatever, despite there being a slew of emulators, backups, and freely available roms online. That's because I'm paying for access to the community to play them with, not just the games themselves, and the community is usually found on the newest releases.

I'm a good example of a Capcom fan, and Capcom have made an absolute bag of money off me over the last 20 years. My sad financial compulsions aside though, the key point here in relation to emulation and backups, is this:

The street fighter community's interest in their series was kept alive for a good ten years plus (the hiatus between 1999 and 2009 when the fighting game craze had been regarded as dead) by emulation, illegal downloads, backups, mame cabs, modded consoles, and many other things that break licensing laws before street fighter 4 came along and made capcom an absolute fortune in 2009 and rejuvinated the genre totally. Capcom made loads more street fighter money off of the same crowd of buyers again, as well as getting a whole load of new ones into their net.

I bought Street fighter 4. For 2 consoles, so i could play against EVERYBODY. And i bought it's sequel. And the DLC costumes, and the next sequel, and the DLC costumes for that, and so on and so on, and it's very likely that had i not been still playing street fighter on roms and backups for the last ten years i would have completely forgotten about the series and gone and spent my money on something sensible, like a holiday, or a new bathroom suite or something...

I think companies like capcom are well aware of this phenomenon, and are quite happy with the status quo of losing small amounts of revenue on the emulation and backup of their old games to keep their intellectual properties active and kicking and keep people interested in what they do, and basically "on their hook".

So i say go for it. If the industry only stands to gain from it, and they don't see a moral dilemma with backups and emulation, then why should anyone else?

CiDeRmAn

Oh, look...

We all love games

Games cost money

Unless you get them for free, stealing them online and nobody can see

Then you get to have the same experience playing them as everyone who paid

Which is nice

If you are faced with the choice of softmodding your Wii in 20mins and playing virtually any game released on it within a few hours of that, sure you'd be mad not to.

Other consoles are more challenging, so we settle to just buy preowned where we can, which is almost as bad as piracy to the publishers as they make no money from preowned sales, hence why they are sticking in Online Passes, hobbling the games if you are the 2nd owner.

Some consoles are a pain to copy games for, the PS2, the 360, the PS3.
Some consoles are not worth the effort, PS1, games are plentiful and cheap, MD and Snes, the same.
Some consoles are naturally hard to copy games for, the N64 for example.

So, to recap, we all love to get something for very little or for nothing, and morals have nothing to do with it.
Those that can run dodgy games do, to the limits of what they can accept, labour-wise, modding their console/buying flash carts, the expense of same, the consequences for online bans etc.
Those that don't either don't find the games prohibitively expensive or lack the knowledge to mod or get modded their console.

Myrddin

Why does a modchip automatically mean piracy? Look at Pyongyang for example, a gamer with morals who had a 360 glitched so he can play his legitimately owned jap exclusives.

When it comes to region locking, I'll go with modding every. single. time.

When it comes to piracy, I'd echo strongly what Mack Daddi wrote. Take Panzer Dragoon for example. Would someone be justified in burning a copy of it, as opposed to paying an ebay seller huge money none of which the game devs will see? I suppose you could justify it that way.

But the line should definitely be drawn at current gen stuff that's still being retailed.

CiDeRmAn

With current gen home consoles the 360 and, when I had one, the PS3 weren't touched, to be honest the decent games aren't innumerable and so I don't mind spending on them here and there, especially when they often get discounted heavily within a month of release.
The Wii got modded to frak and, for a while, I had every game imaginable. But now I am buying those I loved and barely touch the stuff on the hdd anymore.
The DS was the same, and now I am picking up the best on carts.

You can't be called a collector, or an enthusiast, if you have a harddrive full of roms and isos, just doesn't wash.
It'd be like considering yourself a book collector because your Kindle is stuffed with titles from Calibre... like mine! (I do have a considerable library as well)

o1s1n

EnterNow wrote: »

Take Panzer Dragoon for example. Would someone be justified in burning a copy of it, as opposed to paying an ebay seller huge money none of which the game devs will see? I suppose you could justify it that way.
.

That's a good example as there's literally no way of playing it other than buying the expensive original or burning a copy. And it's probably going to be that way until the end of time unless Sega decide to build it from the ground up all over again.

You cannot really apply morals in that situation at all. In fact, it's probably more moral to play the burned copy than to pay a reseller far more than the games original value. It's all very muddy.

Although I'd far rather play original copies of everything (I do a Pyong sniff every time Panzer Dragoon Saga comes out ) I also play backups on the consoles I have modded. Why? Because I cannot possibly afford every single game I want to play. The same thing happened to me with music. If you truely want to appreciate the medium then you have to get your hands on roms and burned discs. Either that or win the lottery!

lasersquad

Hi folks, 1st post (of sorts)

My two cents:

There`s lots of misconceptions around the subject. Many stem from publisher propaganda and are also massively affected by one`s wallet size.

My take is, as long as you do contribute by buying new games in general - and that`s proportional to anybody`s means (some can afford 10 new releases a month, some 1 in three) - there`s nothing wrong with crossing over to the Dark Side. As long as you don`t stay there permanently, or keep some sort of balance, that is. The old chestnut about "I wouldn`t buy it anyway" is true, in a way. Well, at least if the reason is "I couldn`t afford it" or "It`s out of print" or "it goes on for gazillion on ebay"...

There are also positives - it propagates the medium in general, can be a sort of advertising in the long run, some old "pirates" (yours truly) who in some point couldn`t afford anything then turn into buyers, sometime significant ones. And so on.

There`s also lots of hype and hypocrisy around. For example, the "poor" publishers who harp on about the damage are usually the most minted ones. This industry has been around for 30+ years and so was piracy - and yet it`s not "dying", last I`ve checked. Rather to the contrary, with certain titles raking in hundreds of millions and the likes of steam having billions of turnover.

The other thing is it`s quite often the pubs are the ones who exploit devs and are the reason for codeshops toppling. Read sagas of Team Bondi, Rockstar`s Wives etc, crunchtimes and suits running the show, killing off creativity. These days it`s Double Fine`s Kickstarter & Firaxis going-boldly-with-TB-XCoM that raise a smile, not day one DLC for ME3. Well, at least for me

I grew up in Poland where up till the end of the Nineties 99% of soft was pirated. Same for the rest of EE. And yet, look at it now - award winning codeshops and lots of game sales. You like that GOG, Arma, The Witcher, Stalker? Well, all former pirates. On perhaps smaller scale i`m sure it was the same in the West. Here`s an interview with one of my all-time heroes: The Burger - co-creator of The Bard`s Tale/Neuromancer, with mention of her beginnings reverse engineering carts back in the days: http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/134614/the_burger_speaks_an_interview_.php?page=1

Anyway. Interesting subject Just to say, it`s my opinion - I`m not looking to "justify" this or anything, I`m quite comfortable with it. I posted here because so far the tone was quite open minded and without the usual knives-out attitude, hope it stays that way

chopperbyrne

I'm interested in this Gamecube modchip you speak of.

What does it do for you and your Gamecube?

johnboysligo

chopperbyrne wrote: »

I'm interested in this Gamecube modchip you speak of.

What does it do for you and your Gamecube?

Well for me it saves me oodles of money, for the gamecube it emulates the dvd drive meaning game can load an the SD card

chopperbyrne

Got any links to this?

My Gamecube is currently gathering dust, but if I could play any game I want on it, it could be brought out of retirement.

Does it work with the GB player?

Myrddin

johnboysligo wrote: »

Well for me it saves me oodles of money, for the gamecube it emulates the dvd drive meaning game can load an the SD card

Is that the Gecko thingy?

johnboysligo

Wii Key Fusion if you must know. it is designed for a wii but with modification it can work with the gamecube. (electronically a wii is a gamecube redesigned)

EDIT

chopperbyrne wrote: »

Does it work with the GB player?

You would only replace the GB player disc not the hardware but it should work. Id imagine there is a totally software GB advance emulator for the gamecube somewhere.

Doge

o1s1n wrote: »

Buying sarcasm detectors in German stores? Probably not the best ideas..:P

Classic!

CiDeRmAn

I have a Gecko here somewhere, not used....
Is it worth something to someone???
Mwa hahaha!

The Gameboy Player is pretty sweet, I got mine bolted to the underside of an NTSC Gamecube for frak all at a market, the guy selling it wasn't aware it was there.
The disc was missing however but a quick trip to ebay fixed that and it is very impressive.

Dale Parish

I'v a xbox with some sort of panel for bank switching on the front of it with an X as the logo. Anyone know what this is/does?

Steve X2

Dale Parish wrote: »

I'v a xbox with some sort of panel for bank switching on the front of it with an X as the logo. Anyone know what this is/does?

Switch panel for an xecuter 2.6 or similar modchip by the sounds of it.

.

oneillryano

I don't think its morally wrong if what you're downloading is pretty out of date and impossible to find new anywhere. I think one guy said it awhile back that if like me and many others, have spent SO much money on games and continue to do then I don't see the problem with it. I've recently softmodded my wii and find it a god send to be able to play old gamecube games i never got the time for when i was younger.

CiDeRmAn

Modding is not morally wrong.
Once you own the goods I figure you can do what you like with it.
Piracy is always morally wrong, unless the item is in the Public Domain, or PD, then it is someones property.
Now, we can fool ourselves and say, "It's old so it's ok" or "I already have it for the Snes so I'm entitled to run it on my PSP" but ultimately they are owned by someone, and that someone is entitled to royalties, entitled to get paid when something that legally belongs to them is used.
So, really, it boils down to what will your conscience let you away with.
Sonic on an emu on your DS?
The occasional, hard to find Wii Iso?
The latest release on the 360?
Even though I have supped from the goblet of dodgy games in my time, easily 90% of the time I find I am damaging my enjoyment of games, overall.
I end up with more games than I can possibly play.
I end up not valuing a game simply because it cost me a CD-r to play it.

Often the dodgy stuff winds up sitting on a shelf, in a Hdd or a cake of disks or on a mem card and I go back to my regular gaming collection.
Heck now, with the DS, I find myself buying the games what, hitherto, I was playing off of a flashcart, now I want the complete package, the real deal.
Now, the enjoyment of a product is wrapped up in more than just the act of playing, it's also in the having of the physical thing, the tangible boxes and manuals, a sense of new-born nostalgia, an oxy-moron but a fitting one.

Myrddin

CiDeRmAn wrote: »

Now, we can fool ourselves and say, "It's old so it's ok" or "I already have it for the Snes so I'm entitled to run it on my PSP" but ultimately they are owned by someone, and that someone is entitled to royalties, entitled to get paid when something that legally belongs to them is used

I dunno, to me there's an argument there. When you buy the game, are you buying the game itself & the license to play it, or are you buying the physical media so just the one copy.

I own Sonic 1 for the megadrive. I bought it, paid my dues & own a copy of the game. To me, downloading a rom of Sonic 1 now comes with no sticky moral question. Downloading it becomes a convenience, one that Sega may not offer me. Nevertheless, I've paid for the game.

If your just buying the physical media, they're kinda overpriced.

K.O.Kiki

I wish there was a way to just let me send money to the developers.

Like, other than legal DDL with no middleman.

CiDeRmAn

EnterNow wrote: »

I dunno, to me there's an argument there. When you buy the game, are you buying the game itself & the license to play it, or are you buying the physical media so just the one copy.

I own Sonic 1 for the megadrive. I bought it, paid my dues & own a copy of the game. To me, downloading a rom of Sonic 1 now comes with no sticky moral question. Downloading it becomes a convenience, one that Sega may not offer me. Nevertheless, I've paid for the game.

If your just buying the physical media, they're kinda overpriced.

I know, and morally I have to say I agree.

It also raises it's head in music.
If I own an album on vinyl why should I be forced to buy it again on itunes?
In musics case it's all going to go subscription anyway, we'll simply pay a record label or vendor a monthly fee, listen to what we want, when we want and the funds will be divvied up according to who you listened to, or something like that.
No more piracy, because you music list will simply be identified and you'll not see any difference to the subscription simply the bands who you favour will get paid, at least that's my theory.

Videogames are more complex because, from our standpoint, everything we love, with a few exceptions, is on physical media and there is no way to expose your collection to a service and so get a passport to that content forever more.
In the future that may be different, if you buy Trials HD on XBLA then, in 10 years time when they release it on what ever gubbins they come up with you can prove, with your persistent account, that you own it and so won't have to pay... maybe...

I do agree that if I own Rise of the Robots or Streets of Rage or Daikatana on the N64 I should be entitled to download them from where I like and play them on any player I like without fear of imprisonment or sanction for copyright theft, convicted of bad taste maybe, but not theft...

EnterNow

EnterNow wrote: »

I own Sonic 1 for the megadrive. I bought it, paid my dues & own a copy of the game. To me, downloading a rom of Sonic 1 now comes with no sticky moral question.....I've paid for the game

Hows about this for a tweak to that statement, because we aren't all lucky enough to own all the original hardware we've forked out for over the years:

I have in the past owned sonic 1 for the megadrive. I no longer own it, i may have long since got rid of it, but when i did own it i bought it full retail, fair and square, at 40 or 50 Irish pounds or whatever silly price it was back then, and sega got their cut.

Just because i don't own it anymore, that doesn't change the fact that sega have already had their licensing money from me, completely legitimately, and as far as i'm concerned that gives me the right to own that exact piece of software in perpetuity, forever, whether it's on a cartridge, or via a rom backup. If the technology behind the media the game shipped on doesn't stand the test of time, or the manufacturing behind the platform it was on means it goes pop after ten years of use, or even just because i haven't got enough room under my telly for 47 different retro systems so i sold my mega drive, it doesn't matter. I have paid for a license to that piece of intellectual property, and if downloading a ROM of it allows me to get around the hardware limitations associated with having it for life, then that's what I'll do.

I don't remember being asked to sign any software agreement when i bought my sonic 1 cartridge, or my mega drive. Whatever about games that i never owned in the first place, i would feel far more "in the right" about downloading a ROM if i've actually paid sega (or whoever) in full at some point for their work, regardless of whether or not it's still in my posession.

Myrddin

@MackDaddi - Excellent point & well made. It really does fuzz the lines that bit more & I've never thought of it that way before.

Andrew76

My morals are very flexible when it comes to roms of old games, if they weren't then I wouldn't have an Everdrive or NES Powerpak.

But purely from a discussion point of view, I do disagree with the previous arguments that just because you legitimately bought a game, it entitles you to free copies of it in whatever format forever after.

Unless there's some Irish/European law or something in the small print of the game itself that says otherwise, I would have thought that purchasing a game only entitles you to ownership of the physical media itself. That physical media comes with a copy of software/game code that belongs to someone else. Sega (or whoever) don't care if you have the console to play it on, nor do they care if your dog pisses on the cartridge and consequently breaks it - you're not the IP holder of the software and so don't have the right to another copy. Whether that's walking back into the shop and demanding another cart or downloading a rom of the game.

I haven't a clue about software licensing laws, does the IP holder's ownership status run out after x number of years? Thought I read something similar about hardware in the US (hence all those clone devices) but not sure about software.

Just my 2c.

Myrddin

Andrew76 wrote: »

My morals are very flexible when it comes to roms of old games, if they weren't then I wouldn't have an Everdrive or NES Powerpak.

But purely from a discussion point of view, I do disagree with the previous arguments that just because you legitimately bought a game, it entitles you to free copies of it in whatever format forever after.

Unless there's some Irish/European law or something in the small print of the game itself that says otherwise, I would have thought that purchasing a game only entitles you to ownership of the physical media itself. That physical media comes with a copy of software/game code that belongs to someone else. Sega (or whoever) don't care if you have the console to play it on, nor do they care if your dog pisses on the cartridge and consequently breaks it - you're not the IP holder of the software and so don't have the right to another copy. Whether that's walking back into the shop and demanding another cart or downloading a rom of the game.

I haven't a clue about software licensing laws, does the IP holder's ownership status run out after x number of years? Thought I read something similar about hardware in the US (hence all those clone devices) but not sure about software.

Just my 2c.

Well then surely a €60 PS3 game is incredibly overpriced if all your buying is the disc? Surely your paying for the right to play the game you've just bought, & the media itself is of little consequence.

Also, now that you can download full games on a marketplace, you get no physical media. So by buying said game, should you lose the right to play it if your console breaks? Absolutely not, & the game is rightly tied to your account.

Todays games are easier to quantify in this situation, in my mind your buying rights/a license to play a game. Why should this not apply to older games?

Andrew76

EnterNow wrote: »

Well then surely a €60 PS3 game is incredibly overpriced if all your buying is the disc? Surely your paying for the right to play the game you've just bought, & the media itself is of little consequence.

You're buying media and a copy of the software which allows you to play the game assuming you have the necessary console, you're not buying ownership of the IP.

EnterNow wrote: »

Also, now that you can download full games on a marketplace, you get no physical media. So by buying said game, should you lose the right to play it if your console breaks? Absolutely not, & the game is rightly tied to your account.

I didn't mention download only games since I thought we were only talking about old games only available on physical media. Download only falls under different conditions surely - isn't ownership tied to your online account? Once that account is valid then you're entitled to re-download the game if need be, aren't they conditions included in the purchase? Maybe you deleted the game by accident. Your console breaking is irrelevant from the point of view of ownership.

EnterNow wrote: »

Todays games are easier to quantify in this situation, in my mind your buying rights/a license to play a game. Why should this not apply to older games?

To me new games on physical media are the same as old games on physical media. I'm entitled to play that game from that media. According to Macdaddi (if I understood his point correctly) just because I legitimately owned something at one point in time, it entitles me to obtain free copies of it again. Download only is not comparing like with like imo.

Myrddin

Andrew76 wrote: »

You're buying media and a copy of the software which allows you to play the game assuming you have the necessary console, you're not buying ownership of the IP.

No I know that, but arnt you buying the right to play it? Mackdaddi is saying that if you then sell on said game cart, are you losing the right to play said game? If so why? You've paid for it technically, so does the right to play the game belong with the physical media? If so, how does that work with modern download games?

I didn't mention download only games since I thought we were only talking about old games only available on physical media. Download only falls under different conditions surely - isn't ownership tied to your online account? Once that account is valid then you're entitled to re-download the game if need be, aren't they conditions included in the purchase? Maybe you deleted the game by accident. Your console breaking is irrelevant from the point of view of ownership.

It's not just download-only games. A lot of games, Child Of Eden for example, you can download in full or buy a physical copy. If you download, the game is tied to your account & should you ever lose the game, it can be redownloaded.

For the same price, you can buy a physical copy. If you lose this, you must pay again. So again, what are you actually buying when you buy a a game? The media, or the license to play it? Maybe both?

To me new games on physical media are the same as old games on physical media. I'm entitled to play that game from that media. According to Macdaddi (if I understood his point correctly) just because I legitimately owned something at one point in time, it entitles me to obtain free copies of it again. Download only is not comparing like with like imo.

I'd agree, there should be no distinction just because something is old. I do accept there should be a cost of different ports given that work went into them. For example yesterday I bought Doom on XBLA. It was 400 points. I own Doom on a few formats now, but I don't mind paying a small amount to cover the cost of the work that went into porting it etc.

But when it comes to roms, they are exact dumps of games etc I'd already own. Emulators are largely freeware, so there's nobody to support per se. I've paid for the game, why should I be able to run it on freeware emulators?

Andrew76

EnterNow wrote: »

No I know that, but arnt you buying the right to play it? Mackdaddi is saying that if you then sell on said game cart, are you losing the right to play said game? If so why?

You're buying the means to play a game from that media. If you're playing it via a rom on an emulator or a new game via a hacked PS3 then no, you're not entitled (regardless of whether you once paid for it).

EnterNow wrote: »

You've paid for it technically, so does the right to play the game belong with the physical media? If so, how does that work with modern download games?

Yes that's how I see it, you have the right to play the game from the media (or distribution method if you want to use that term instead) you paid for.

If you sell on something you purchased then yes you lose the right to own it free of charge again. Otherwise that's like saying if I walked into HMV and bought Star Trek: TNG the complete series on dvd (a wise purchase I might add :cool:), sold it on Adverts - I still have the right to download it? Or go back into the shop and demand another set because I paid for it previously? I don't have that right.

Anyway this is just my lowly opinion on the argument of what ownership entitles you to. I would love if buying something once, entitles me to unlimited copies of it in whatever format, but it doesn't imo.

Myrddin

Andrew76 wrote: »

If you sell on something you purchased then yes you lose the right to own it free of charge again.

Yeah I suppose I'd have to agree there. So Mackdaddi, even though you paid for Sonic 1, you since sold it & forfeit your 'right' to have it again without paying for it.

I do still maintain though, that it should not be wrong to run something like a rom of Sonic 1 on a freeware emulator should you own a physical copy of the game.

Andrew76

OK, there's a lot to answer here, so here goes

Andrew76 wrote: »

purely from a discussion point of view, I do disagree with the previous arguments that just because you legitimately bought a game, it entitles you to free copies of it in whatever format forever after

Not whatever format, just the original, exact version, the exact release of that software, on the system it was originally designed for. That doesn't mean ports, re-releases, remastered versions etc, but yes, i think if I've paid for something in a software vein, i should have it for good, and the whole concept of fair use (which admittedly wasn't around in sonic's day) would tend to back me up on that. Once i've paid the developer for their work, i can make backups, in case my disc malfunctions or whatever.

I think there's maybe a moral difference (albeit a small one) between downloading a game you've since sold by choice, and one that broke or malfunctioned on you because of the limitations of the media of the day. One example means i chose to give up my ownership, the other means that the media the studio sold me wasn't fit to survive long enough for me to get full use out of it. Now you could make the same argument about anything that you buy, take a car for example. Cars don't last forever, eventually they'll rust, or the engine will fall apart or whatever, but the distinction is, in that case you're buying the car itself, a physical entity, and that's the thrust of your purchase, to be able to drive a car. With software, you're buying information, code, etc, the ability to PLAY the game NOT just to own the bit of $2 plastic it ships on.

Look at arcade PCBs. They're a perfect example. I'm probably preaching to the converted here, but the value of a PCB is a few quid's worth of components and plastic, and they have a very short shelf life. They die young in most cases, unless they're cared for immaculately. Does that mean that you should have to re-buy the exact same board again, at great cost, and probably at no further value to the original developer, as second hand sellers are the only people who are now likely to have it, and at a mark up too, or worse, buy multiple copies in case one goes pop in a few years? I don't think so.

Andrew76 wrote: »

Unless there's some Irish/European law or something in the small print of the game itself that says otherwise, I would have thought that purchasing a game only entitles you to ownership of the physical media itself.

As far as i can see, Irish law is still struggling with the concept of digital media licensing in it's entirety. As far as I'm aware there still isn't any explicit protection in our legal system that makes specific provision against internet methods of disseminating music, games and the like. Internet is still thrown into the "other methods of dissemination" bucket, and the way things have been done so far is all based on "codes of practice" and "agreements" and primarily concerns music and motion pictures and that industry's concerns for their present revenues, not defunct games from 20 odd years ago that aren't a major source of revenue or concern for anyone.

EnterNow wrote: »

Yeah I suppose I'd have to agree there. So Mackdaddi, even though you paid for Sonic 1, you since sold it & forfeit your 'right' to have it again without paying for it.

I do still maintain though, that it should not be wrong to run something like a rom of Sonic 1 on a freeware emulator should you own a physical copy of the game.

Maybe if i sold my game, I'd agree with you, sure, but like i posted above, what do i do if my cartridge, or disc, or PCB has malfunctioned? In the absence of any replacement or re-download system from the developer to replace vintage carts that have gone pop, the only real alternative to re-buying it is to download the ROM, for personal use of course.

So do all the principles of fair use apply here, such as the right to maintain a backup in case of loss or corruption of data, or are we talking about an era where that concept wasn't relevant and you were just buying a lump of plastic?

CiDeRmAn

Something not mentioned is that, in any actual fact, you are the only legitimate owner of the software after purchase, so the rights persist with you.
If you sell it to third party they do not party anything to the developer or publisher, meaning instead of gaining another round of fees from a new customer they lose those fees.
This is why they are currently engaged inn the online pass crap with new releases to try and claw back these monies.
By having no truck with the preowned market they reconfirm the lone owner of the right to the software is the original owner.
So, in theory, if you can prove, somehow, you bought the game in the past you should still retain the right to continue to enjoy that content.
But then all they have to do is include a modicum of additional content, call it an upgraded, hd, or redux version and charge you extra for the new " special edition".

Witness the efforts of the various companies to limit the backwards compatibility of consoles, even those that launched with the feature, PS3 and Xbox360.
Also those that can easily run older content, like the PSP, have their capabilities hobbled, every bit as draconian as Apple it would seem.

So, it could be argued that, the console manufacturers are driving us to use non approved methods to enjoy our own legitimately owned games on modern systems that have the functionality but limit the access for the sake of profit.

Great point ciderman. I had thought of the fact the devs get no cash from any resale of games, but the issue of licenses being non-transferrable had never occurred to me.

So in effect, as long as I can prove I own or at one stage owned a game, that would make me the the sole licensee for good, right? Man, am I glad I keep the receipts for all my games :-)

Getting away from the morals argument for a minute though, I don't think this is something that the games industry will ever kick up too much of a stink about, as long as the distinction is drawn between current gen and retro games on extinct platforms. As long as their current revenue base isn't being cannibalised, they don't really care, and unlike the music or record industries there's a gap between current gen games and what can currently be emulated. Emulation takes time to be viable, and that time is what's so valuable to the publishing companies, because unlike the music industries they have a few years window to sell their content before its emulate-able.

As far as I'm aware, reliable emulation is now at the stage where about 70% of the last gen ps2 games are emulated if you've got decent hardware that's up to the task, and that's the top-end state of the art. You're talking 5-6 years of a buffer there for games companies to market their wares before emulation has even the slightest chance of making a dent in their profits, and even at that it will take a lot longer before the games will be playable at the level of something as accessible as MAME for example.

Most people that I show my arcade cab to and explain how it works are like "wait, you can do what???" Emulation is largely unknown about by game buyers, and I think the games companies are happy to keep quiet on it, to keep things that way.

CiDeRmAn

Eventually it'll all go subscription, won't matter what you download over your lifetime, you interconnected world will make sure it is visible and so will be part of your collection, you will be paying a sum every month for all your digital content and so will never have to repeat buy a game again.
Like I said, the last 30 years or so of physical media will be a dim and distant memory in, say 50 years, and all the content bought in that time will be yours. for always...
At least that's the way I see it.

We have to try to view the future and our relationship with it more like the way we view the past.
In effect, when we look at, say, the life of the AM radio we see it as a distraction, a throw back and something that has no place in the modern world.
We see it's existence as fleeting and see the future purely in terms of FM and wireless net streaming, the latter of which, in one form or another, is probably the way it will be forever, as long as people want to listen to music channels.
Now, in actual fact AM has been around since the dawn of the wireless, most of the 20th century was facilitated by AM radio, but now it is of little consequence to most and only a fraction really have any romantic or nostalgic relationship with it.
The AM radios are missed by very few, that functionality dying out in receivers everywhere and most are happy to listen to either downloads of irreplaceable broadcasts or remasters and new versions of classic tunes, sketch shows etc.

And so it will be with games.
The few who are nostalgic for the old days are all here, or around these parts, meaning the majority of gamers who hanker after the cart are fewer and fewer, relative to the numbers who are playing games, which are growing by the week.
The era of physical media will be done within 10 years, and we will go forth into a future that will have downloads to the device of your choice, a future that will view the past 30 years as an anachronism, an irrelevance, like the AM radio.
They won't care about original hardware, asking "isn't it better on a modern machine, with a modern display?"
And this is a fact.
Now Sonic 2 could be a classic for all time.
Folk may well be still playing OoT in 100 years, enjoying the storytelling and music, the classic themes and so on as one might enjoy a great book or movie mow.

So, a point to make, finally.
Piracy, or the right to play content on anything you like is surely not going to be an issue in the future.
We will simply have content that will be paid for according to use, invisibly in the background.
We will be, rather than buying a game, be buying a licence to access content held held elsewhere and this licence may be ad infinitum or limited to the lifetime of the product on this device, please read the small print!
Any content held locally will be registered and simply paid for out of your subscription, after all, if you are paying for, say, a months gaming at a time, you can play as many games as you like but you only have so many hours to do so, so they can simply pay the ultimate IP holder the fee from your sub.
Carts and discs? They'll be our problem, unless we can register our physical media there will be no amnesty, no way to gain access to this content into the future.

The downloaded copy of Rez HD may well be the better one to own in 60 years, when there isn't a PS2 or Dreamcast to be had to play the loved physical copy you have, framed on the wall...

CiDeRmAn

CiDeRmAn wrote: »

Eventually it'll all go subscription......
We will be, rather than buying a game, be buying a licence to access content held held elsewhere and this licence may be ad infinitum or limited to the lifetime of the product on this device, please read the small print!

This is how i see it, and frankly, i do think it's a better model than physical media with a limited shelf life. It will put paid to the entire notion of a "collector", but i think that will be part of the price of progress, as you put it an anachronistic throwback to an irrelevant era. For me personally, i'll keep holding on to my mint condition, boxed, original copies with product documentation and proof of purchase, but that's just me and i won't be around forever (unfortunately).

Back to the point though, we're not there yet, and i think in lieu of having signed any kind of agreement in relation to the software on my aforementioned sonic the hedgehog cartridge, the thrust of the questions being asked here at the moment, summed up, is this: Should the modern, relatively recent concept of "fair use" and having a right to access software that you've properly paid for in perpituity, and protect your investment beyond the bounds of the limitations of the physical media it shipped on be allowed to be applied retrospectively to software from an era where that concept was not relevant, where you were buying an overpriced lump of plastic, without any real level of vendor or user agreement, and caveat emptor was the order of the day?

I would say yes, it definitely should....but then i am most certainly biased, because it means that i can haz games and feel OK about it

CiDeRmAn

Sometimes I forgive myself for downloading a game by saying to myself, with my little inner voice,
"It's ok Ciderman, Sony convinced you to buy so many awful games at full price over the years, this is simply us getting value for money out of them"

It works most of the time...