next »

[Dragonmaw]

I use ROMs (and pirated games in general) to scope out whether or not to purchase a game I am interested. Given my rather massive game collection at this point, I think it's worked fairly well. Piracy (especially abandonware or ROM piracy) can serve purposes alternate to simply getting a free game. There are very few games that I have pirated that I did not outright buy later down the line. The only one I can think of offhand I have since stopped playing. I also deleted said pirated copy from my HDD.

I sort of agree that it's a dick move to pirate games to "avoid paying money to corporate masters," since purchasing any reasonably recent game ensures money for the developer. For anything less than the modern generation of consoles, though, the mode of acquisition is primarily the secondary (used) market, and developers don't see a penny of that money. It's almost pure profit for whoever is selling it. So I don't really feel all that bad downloading a ROM of Final Fantasy 6, because I know that Square will not be seeing any of that money even when I do purchase it from eBay or my local used games store.

Support your developers!

u know how to save money?? by 1. playing the demo, 2. not buying it if you didnt like the demo. "wahhh i didnt like the game but im going to pirate it anyway because im entitled to steal from a corporate company because they didnt make the game how i wanted it to be!!!!"

I didn't buy or pirate it, it just doesn't bother me if other people do. People pirating indie games is a shame, people pirating the crap that AAA companies shovel out is no skin off my nose.

If it is a AAA game, it is by definition not "shoveled out." There is a genre for those kind of games: shovelware. Hooray for dodgy logic and double standards. If you don't pirate indie games, you shouldn't be pirating modern AAA games either.

[J. Kyle Pittman]

People pirating indie games is a shame, people pirating the crap that AAA companies shovel out is no skin off my nose.

I'm curious why you draw that distinction. Is it because indie games cost less on average, so piracy seems pettier? Or do you assume AAA games will still generally sell pretty well regardless of piracy, and by that turn, AAA developers' jobs are more stable, whereas piracy could be the difference between whether or not a full-time indie developer can pay the bills? Or is it that you just don't like most AAA games, so you don't empathize with those developers when their games get pirated?

[Theophilus]

People pirating indie games is a shame, people pirating the crap that AAA companies shovel out is no skin off my nose.

I'm curious why you draw that distinction. Is it because indie games cost less on average, so piracy seems pettier? Or do you assume AAA games will still generally sell pretty well regardless of piracy, and by that turn, AAA developers' jobs are more stable, whereas piracy could be the difference between whether or not a full-time indie developer can pay the bills? Or is it that you just don't like most AAA games, so you don't empathize with those developers when their games get pirated?

I think it'd be more because indie developers don't generally have 15 for-sale titles flying off the shelves. Unless you're Notch.

[DavidCaruso]

I mean unless you're using your super-powerful computer to emulate modern console games that you haven't paid for or something

which isnt currently possible.

Well, actually, the computer I'm currently on is powerful enough to play some Wii games at full speed (SMG2 works on here) and almost all DS games (this even worked well on my last comp 2 years ago which was from like...2005).

People pirating indie games is a shame, people pirating the crap that AAA companies shovel out is no skin off my nose.

Uh, the big faceless monster devil corporations still have teams made up of individual (and probably underpaid) people working on their games, who are definitely not working on 15 other games at the same time. Even the crap ones and shoveled-out ones.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

another thing is that even though the money doesn't directly go to those developers (very few companies give their developers royalties) what is at stake is their jobs: if a game doesn't sell well, the people who worked on that game are often fired

[Toom]

Yeah, well, Shiguru Myamoto might not approve of me playing OoT whilst wearing my underpants as a hat, but he's going to have to suck it up. When you create something and put it out into the public domain, it no longer belongs to you, and you have no say in how people enjoy it.

i don't think you know what "public domain" means?

Sometimes hangovers cause incorrect words to come out of me. The point still stands - once you put something out into the world, especially if you charge money for it, it is no longer yours, and you do not get to decide how people use it.

I am an illustrator by profession and I spend a lot of time on copyright issues,  not wanting to get completely fucked by the unscrupulous. What if Todd Goldman sees something I drew?

[moi]

People forget that the primary reason for the existence of emulation was NOT to get free games.
There were better games available at the time mame and other emulators started appearing (at the beggining Mame could only emulate very old games).
The primary reason was PRESERVATION of old games. At this time (early 90s) all the digital download market didn't exist and people started taking notice of old game that were becoming very rare and of their own cartridge collection that were begining to wear off.
the first emulator I encountered was fMSX (by Marat Fayzullin), one of the first if not the first emulator of an old system( it was done in 1993, ten years before eva was born).

I'm pretty sure that the whole "VIRTUAL CONSOLE" business and reselling of old game wouldn't exist if some of these very talented coders hadn't attempted to prevent old games from disappearing in the first place.

Personally my only appeal to collecting roms is nostalgia and preservation, that's why I don't download any ROM made after the N64.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

The point still stands - once you put something out into the world, especially if you charge money for it, it is no longer yours, and you do not get to decide how people use it.

i don't really see what your evidence is for this position, though. by law, people *do* have a say in how what they create is used, so what you say is literally false: people do have a say in how what they create is used, even if they sell it.

as an example, consider this:



this nyc billboard was made using a picture of a little girl in my city (paterson, nj). there was a big public reaction to the image, not the least of which by the girl's mother who was upset that her daughter's image was used like that. this reaction caused the ad to be taken down.

that seems to go against the idea that people should have no say in how what they create is used (unless of course you're willing to argue that the mother was wrong and that they had the perfect right to use the girl's picture in such an offensive way).

[jotapeh]

Pop quiz: the authentic Zelda 2 cartridge I bought from a speciality games store a few weeks ago cost me $25, and it still works great with my old NES.

Does Nintendo get any of this money? No.

Do I legally own the game, and the right to play it? Yes, nobody in their right mind would debate this.

Is this 'ethical'? I dunno. Someone who goes and buys the WiiWare title pays a fair sum but they certainly can't resell their download. If I did go and pay someone for their Wii points investment, transferred the game to my Wii (via illegal means, obviously,) and had them delete it – would this be legal? Would that be 'ethical'?

[Destral]

People pirating indie games is a shame, people pirating the crap that AAA companies shovel out is no skin off my nose.

I'm curious why you draw that distinction. Is it because indie games cost less on average, so piracy seems pettier? Or do you assume AAA games will still generally sell pretty well regardless of piracy, and by that turn, AAA developers' jobs are more stable, whereas piracy could be the difference between whether or not a full-time indie developer can pay the bills? Or is it that you just don't like most AAA games, so you don't empathize with those developers when their games get pirated?

I think it'd be more because indie developers don't generally have 15 for-sale titles flying off the shelves. Unless you're Notch.

Each of those 15 titles still took many people time and effort to make. Publisher-owned studios are in as much danger (or more) of getting shut down if a released title does poorly at market, and it makes getting a deal to make another game all the harder. Not to mention that a lot of small and mid-sized studios usually develop games for publishers in the hopes of making enough money to work on a piece of original IP.

So, at the end of the day, no matter which way you put it, no matter how you look at it, piracy harms someone. If you (and this is the general 'you', I'm not singling anyone quoted or posted here out) like a game enough to play it, consider giving the people who made that game money. If you don't have the money to pay for games, but have the time to play them, perhaps you could do something with the resource you have an excess of (time) to convert it into the resource you don't have enough of (money). If you wouldn't pay full price for a game when it comes out, consider waiting for the price to drop after a few months, rather than buying it used, since buying it used nets the developer $0.

This is not a 'OMG PYRATS I HAET YUO!' rant. This is the philosophy I take when buying games now that I have become a game developer myself. As has been mentioned before, if we're talking about a game that is no longer available for sale by any means that will net the developer money, by all means, ROM to your hearts content. But if you can help a developer with a few bucks, not only them, but the entire videogame developer population of the world will be better off for it.

At the end of the day, it comes to what that one dude said about doing unto others as you would have them do unto you.

[Cthulhu32]

another thing is that even though the money doesn't directly go to those developers (very few companies give their developers royalties) what is at stake is their jobs: if a game doesn't sell well, the people who worked on that game are often fired

This isn't true for companies that due contract development. Its up to the publisher and the development company they work with to determine royalties (very rare), wages, time-lines, etc. For example, any Disney game you see made is contracted out to a third-party developer.

So really if you pirate games that are not directly created and published by the developer, or include some type of royalty system along the way, you are never hurting the original developer. I believe Game Developer magazine talks a lot about how to break into these contract bidding systems. Many companies have connections with publishers they have worked with before as well to get future contracts with a solid pay-rate.

Good examples of this:
http://www.pipeworks.com/products/games/
http://www.griptonite.com/games/
http://www.otherocean.com/products.html

The only legit argument I've ever heard for not pirating old ROMs is because its illegal to download and distribute copyrighted material. However, with no way to actually tell which companies are still even in business anymore, the copyright on old games is complete b.s. anyway. They teach law degrees that are pretty much nothing but learning how broken copyright is and how to protect your company when someone finds a loophole or challenges you.

On a side note, I got permission from one of the programmers of the old arcade game Nibbler to make a homebrew port :D He probably doesn't actually hold any rights to the game, but because the original company doesn't exist I'll take his word over an invisible hand.

[Cthulhu32]

Pop quiz: the authentic Zelda 2 cartridge I bought from a speciality games store a few weeks ago cost me $25, and it still works great with my old NES.

25 dollars? Was it the gold or the grey cartridge?

Also, I go on NES cartridge buying binges on ebay. Just look up "Lot of NES" and you can usually find 10-15 carts for < $20, or 3-5 carts for < $10. I've got some childhood favorites that way including Milon's Secret Castle, Mighty Bombjack, and Little Nemo

[Toom]

The point still stands - once you put something out into the world, especially if you charge money for it, it is no longer yours, and you do not get to decide how people use it.

i don't really see what your evidence is for this position, though. by law, people *do* have a say in how what they create is used, so what you say is literally false: people do have a say in how what they create is used, even if they sell it.

as an example, consider this:



this nyc billboard was made using a picture of a little girl in my city (paterson, nj). there was a big public reaction to the image, not the least of which by the girl's mother who was upset that her daughter's image was used like that. this reaction caused the ad to be taken down.

that seems to go against the idea that people should have no say in how what they create is used (unless of course you're willing to argue that the mother was wrong and that they had the perfect right to use the girl's picture in such an offensive way).

If the parents surrendered perpetual rights when they sold the image, then I'm afraid they do! It's shit, but that's why you read contracts through. I'm not condoning that hideous thing, and I'm glad it's no longer around, but it is what it is. I did a painting for a PA agency a few years ago that I happen to know ended its life as a dartboard; not the purpose I had in mind when I sold them  the piece, but fuck it, it's not my painting anymore; it's theirs, and they can do what they like with it.

The issue here, essentially, is whether it's ethical to play a game that you've paid for on a different machine. I'll happily pay money for Ocarina of Time - and have, twice if you count the version that came bundled with the Wind Waker edition I bought - but I'm fucked if they're going to tell me how to play it, particularly when they're ostensibly selling a license rather than a physical product. I've still got my PS1 copy of Megaman Legends, bought and paid for, but I still got a ROM of it, because I can't bring my PS1 on the train, you know?

[Widget]

Good grief, I should've known better...

Let's get one thing straight first; I don't pirate games anymore. Even the games I once did pirate, I've since bought (excusing less than a dozen, none of which I played for more than a couple of hours).

The reason I draw that destinction is because big-budget games have a vast captive audience; the vast majority of people who play games buy big-budget games and they buy them in droves. A few dozen (hell, a couple thousand) people pirating them isn't gonna make an appreciable difference to the kind of money they're raking in. And yes, the choice of word was poor but there have only been a couple of big-budget games I liked in the past decade; these big studios pour out a truly disgusting mountain of crap every year. FPS fans occasionally get a real gem, everyone else is pretty much stuffed.

An indie developer often has an audience on such a small scale that any few potential customers who choose to pirate their game could be the difference between just ticking over and going under. It's a question of a venture's ability to absorb losses.

I'm not saying people should pirate games, I just couldn't care less if they do the big ones.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

If the parents surrendered perpetual rights when they sold the image, then I'm afraid they do! It's shit, but that's why you read contracts through. I'm not condoning that hideous thing, and I'm glad it's no longer around, but it is what it is. I did a painting for a PA agency a few years ago that I happen to know ended its life as a dartboard; not the purpose I had in mind when I sold them  the piece, but fuck it, it's not my painting anymore; it's theirs, and they can do what they like with it.

that still isn't really true: even if they sold the rights to use it, there are other laws which govern the use of one's work: defamation laws for instance, or the so-called "moral rights" of the creator. read this for instance:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights_(copyright_law)

Moral rights are rights of creators of copyrighted works generally recognized in civil law jurisdictions and, to a lesser extent, in some common law jurisdictions. They include the right of attribution, the right to have a work published anonymously or pseudonymously, and the right to the integrity of the work. The preserving of the integrity of the work bars the work from alteration, distortion, or mutilation. Anything else that may detract from the artist's relationship with the work even after it leaves the artist's possession or ownership may bring these moral rights into play. Moral rights are distinct from any economic rights tied to copyrights. Even if an artist has assigned his or her copyright rights to a work to a third party, he or she still maintains the moral rights to the work.

Moral rights were first recognized in France and Germany, before they were included in the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works in 1928. Canada recognizes moral rights in its Copyright Act, although the French translation of the phrase used in the legislation is "droits moraux", not "droit d'auteur" (the latter refers to copyright as a whole). While the United States became a signatory to the convention in 1988, it still does not completely recognize moral rights as part of copyright law, but rather as part of other bodies of law, such as defamation or unfair competition.

Some jurisdictions allow for the waiver of moral rights. In the United States, the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990 (VARA) recognizes moral rights, but applies only to works of visual art.

so it really isn't true that people have no right to decide how what they created is used.

[eva]

Anything that saves people from wasting money on that miserable excuse for a game is good in my book.

[eva]

lets replace dragon age with aquaria!!!1 oh no now u cant say that on this forum!!!

[moshboy]

Only emulator I really use is Mame and I don't even use a recent build of it (and very occasionally use an Amiga emulator). That's something I see no harm in.

Recent console emulation is a different story though. There's no real excuse for emulating the Wii I think.

[Destral]

Anything that saves people from wasting money on that miserable excuse for a game is good in my book.

Your not liking a specific title has no bearing on the developer's need and desire to get paid.

If you don't like a game, by all means, don't buy it. If you don't like a game, you should have no reason to pirate it either.

[azeo]

Pirating, in general, is something I only do when I don't have money. When I was younger and didn't have a job, I download music and old snes games every week. Then I got a job, and started buying cds and games. For a year, until I quit to focus on school, I didn't pirate anything. I think of pirating as just a way for me to experience something, because I appreciate the work and don't want to miss out just bevause I didn't have the funds at the moment. And most of the time I don't even finish games I pirate, because they don't end up being thinks I want to play. I treat it like demos