61–70 of 130 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Meh. People knew when they bought in that the platforms were closed. If they wanted "open platforms" they should've bought PC games.
PC games aren't particularly open. Most are heavily DRM encumbered.
This is a much better situation than on consoles, where all games are heavily DRM encumbered.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Meh. People knew when they bought in that the platforms were closed. If they wanted "open platforms" they should've bought PC games.
Exactly! That's why I can still play Counter-Strike: Global Offensive...oh wait, nvm.
It’ll never happen, but I think codifying a concept similar to “abandonware” in law would be a huge step forward. If a person can’t buy or rent a piece of media, then it should be able to be freely shared. Maybe add a short time-out period in case there are momentary hiccups with a creator. Make it apply not just to videogames, but books, movies, music, etc. After all, if you can’t buy it, you’re not depriving the cr…
Hmm. I don't think I agree with the philosophy of it, even if the outcome is good for consumers. For one, just because something is not available for purchase does not mean that the creator is not deprived of the would-be revenue. An existing owner of a copy of the media should have access to it for the duration, but I can't get to why it should become freely shareable. Secondly, that puts an unfair burden on creator…
That's what the large conglomerates keep saying, although they haven't been able to produce any study proving that.
Since there's no proof of it, the loss of revenue is some urban legend.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you're missing the point of the parent's suggestion. > Regulators should force companies to open source any games and associated server software that consumers paid to "own", yet companies are no longer willing to maintain. Nintendo shouldn't be forced to support them, but consumers should be able to continue using them. The hardware still works great, and even if not, we have virtual hardware. This should be…
They didn't buy the games, they just bought licenses to use them in certain ways. Their mistake
It’ll never happen, but I think codifying a concept similar to “abandonware” in law would be a huge step forward. If a person can’t buy or rent a piece of media, then it should be able to be freely shared. Maybe add a short time-out period in case there are momentary hiccups with a creator. Make it apply not just to videogames, but books, movies, music, etc. After all, if you can’t buy it, you’re not depriving the cr…
But the value of something is often its scarcity... The owner of Once Upon a Time in Shaolin by Wu Tang would be pretty mad if it was freely shared because it couldn't be bought or rented. Context from Wikipedia for those who don't know it: "Once Upon a Time in Shaolin is the seventh studio album by the American hip hop group Wu-Tang Clan. Only one physical copy of the album was created, with no ability to download o…
But the value to who. We have copyright laws (ostensibly) for the benefit of society as a whole by allowing creators to have a limited time monopoly on selling their ideas.
> then Nintendo would presumably argue that they intended there to be a limited number of Wii's or Pokémon Red or whatever.
Them arguing it doesn't make them right. Any more than it makes sense to allow Disney to keep extending copyright decade after decade simply because they're greedy.
It’ll never happen, but I think codifying a concept similar to “abandonware” in law would be a huge step forward. If a person can’t buy or rent a piece of media, then it should be able to be freely shared. Maybe add a short time-out period in case there are momentary hiccups with a creator. Make it apply not just to videogames, but books, movies, music, etc. After all, if you can’t buy it, you’re not depriving the cr…
https://www.npr.org/2023/07/21/1189450157/the-classic-video-...
This an evidence of gaping holes in digital consumer rights. People bought eShop software and physical hardware that they can no longer use or update. Regulators should force companies to open source any games and associated server software that consumers paid to "own", yet companies are no longer willing to maintain.
> People bought eShop software and physical hardware that they can no longer use or update. Yeah, about that - ‘FAQ from Nintendo says that players will be able to download patches and redownload games purchased from the eShop “for the foreseeable future.”’ Directly from the link in the OP.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think so. The appeal is in spoiling childhood innocence and not getting sued for it. Case in point: Peppa the Pig had problems with exploitative knockoff videos being uploaded for years, that were deliberately designed to be offensive and shocking. If Mario went public domain tomorrow, I absolutely guarantee you that 90% of what goes online or gets made will be content intended to shock, traumatize, or offend…
> The appeal is in spoiling childhood innocence and not getting sued for it. Unfortunately this happens under the current system. See E.g., Star Wars. I’m not super invested in the franchise but entries after the original trilogy have been polarizing, as probably the vast majority of us here have been made aware.
It's starting to turn out, and I fear the perception is getting set, that almost all of that creativity is garbage, or at least perceived as such by a growing percentage of people.
Seriously though, if I was Disney, I'd bankroll secretly as much garbage public domain content about Winnie the Pooh and Mickey Mouse as possible. I'd then lobby Congress for infinitely renewable copyright. I then get to frame every Senator opposed as supporting horror content for kids. Fun.
It’ll never happen, but I think codifying a concept similar to “abandonware” in law would be a huge step forward. If a person can’t buy or rent a piece of media, then it should be able to be freely shared. Maybe add a short time-out period in case there are momentary hiccups with a creator. Make it apply not just to videogames, but books, movies, music, etc. After all, if you can’t buy it, you’re not depriving the cr…
I don't know if this would work. Right now, Winnie the Pooh has gone public domain, and if you've seen the reaction to "Winnie the Pooh: Blood and Honey" or a new video game called "Winnie's Hole"... most people really, really do not like that Winnie the Pooh is being expanded in the horror direction. Some are even calling for copyright to be eternal because the public is showing that it cannot handle public domain r…
I would Love to see more horror on weird stuff, especially Disney stuff.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Atari 2600 launched in 1977. If you can get your hands on a working console and cartridge, they will still play regardless of the status of Atari's company software infrastructure. You can even transfer ownership of the cartridge to other people at no cost. The license even permits resale! Cloud-based software allows corporations to rewrite ownership rights however they see fit. edit: Aside, marking the lifespan…
Do you think a person’s cartridge of Pokemon Sun is going to stop working after this? Online services means multiplayer games won’t work anymore, but single player physical games won’t magically stop working just because the online services shut down.
No, but some of the game's features will stop working. It's not a huge deal for Pokemon because it's primarily a singleplayer game, but that isn't the case for all games. Splatoon, for example, is a primarily online Wii U game that will no longer be playable at all after this shutdown (they had already shut down the servers for this game earlier this year due to a security issue, and took 5 whole months to fix it before bringing them back).
As time goes on, more and more games become reliant on online servers to function, more and more of their functionality is lost once those servers are shut down.