What are your thoughts on emulation?

Discussion in 'Classic gaming' started by Sykikal, Feb 24, 2009.

  1. Shadow

    Shadow ಠ_ಠ

    Logic, use it.



    (I didn't lose you already did I?)

    He's stating that as an IF it happened, which doesn't make sense because it's already happening and it's been happening since the start of gaming almost and there is still high demand for it so tell me what part you don't get?

    What needs to be justified exactly?

    ---------- Post added at 01:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:03 PM ----------

    Well you were wrong. Not everyone has a bunch of free time. I'm only going to bet busier in the coming months too, school, work and a huge trip are coming up

    Sorry but unless they've changed their policy I've never gotten much for my games personally and I was being generous with $10 because that's about how much I would get back in store credit if I bought a new game and then turned right back around and turned it in. I did that once, brought the game back the next day for around $9-$10 however I assume because maybe that game was new and in high demand.

    You're not going to sell your game for much if the disc is not in perfect condition, there is only so much those cleaning solutions can do, even the professionally done ones. You say that because it's a physical disc it has value because you can transfer the license well that's true, the game is still very fragile and not worth squat if damaged.

    I remember on my 360 I had to buy 3 copies of L4D, no I was not careless with my games, I had a shelf to put them on, all the original cases and manuals etc but I have siblings who get into stuff the moment I turn my back and **** happens, you can't prevent that however one of those times my console was barely bumped and the disc ended up with that laser ring scratch, game still worked but the textures in the game were all ****ed. No one is going to take a look at that and want anymore than $0.25

    I was not going to say something like "oh probably about half of pirates will buy the game" because I know that's not true, I assume (yes assume) that with the millions of pirates out there that at the least 25% will buy the game because pirating is not just about getting the game for free. Take about 3 pirates and ask them why they pirate, they'd probably say:

    Because I have no money = they may buy it legit when they do but I'm also assuming on this one that most won't but a lot still do.

    Because I want to demo the game first before spending $30+ on a game I might not like OR a lot of people are oblivious on PC specs so they might want to see if the game will even run on their PC = This is the number 1 reason people would pirate but then turn around and buy the game if they liked it and it ran on their system

    I personally did that with Minecraft as I said, there really was no demo at the time so I pirated it and I was glad I did, I was not able to run the game on my laptop. As soon as I got a new PC I bought 2 copies of the game. Notch even said he doesn't mind piracy and also claimed that people who pirated though were never going to buy the game in the first place so no sales were actually lost, it's not like walking into a store and stealing physical copes, those would not be lost in black market circulation.

    Minecraft Creator Notch Tells Players to Pirate His Game - Forbes
    Notch on piracy: "if a pirated game is a lost sale, should bad reviews be illegal?" | PC Gamer
    How piracy works. : The Word of Notch

    As he is an indie dev himself (who actually has a popular game) who knows how the industry is and how it may affect him I'm more inclined to think he knows what he's talking about just a lil bit.

    And the last reason, the game may not be available in their country = they'd buy it if possible but since it's not the only way to enjoy that game like millions of other gamers have, they have to pirate it. The game may even be banned there so it would be worse.

    Oh they very well could tell their friends and probably do but I'm highly skeptical that their friends will rush out and buy a brand new game when they find out their friend just got a way cheaper used game from Gamestop. I doubt "supporting the dev" is at the top of their mind when they want that game. Most gamers don't even know that devs/publishers don't profit from used game sales and a lot probably don't even care but will call piracy bad because it's what they've been told it is while used games are encouraged.

    You say
    Really? How do you figure that?

    More people pirate games than buy used.

    Lets say this, once per every 10 gamers a new game is bought, while once per every thousand pirates buy a game

    It would be 10/1000

    But if there is, say 100,000 pirates on PC and 10,000 on console then it would still be 1:1

    100 copies will have been sold regardless. More people pirated the game and never paid anything back? Odds are they still told their friends about the game (and there being more pirates will have told more) sure console gamers could tell their friends too but it's highly more likely that their friends will just hop on out to their local gamestop and buy a used copy too. PC gamers could pirate too but with all the "torrent = virus" hype we got Steam and other game distributors have grown to be a more viable option.

    True, I was saying that but read it in a different article, here.

    Lionhead: Pre-owned worse than PC piracy

    Lets take this apart for a minute.

    Not really, people have always been complaining about the price of games since back in the day and it hasn't stopped. People ALWAYS want to pay less which is why the used game industry is here. You won't get $35 back on a new game, I can just about guarantee it. Not to mention it also has to do with supply and demand there. If CoD Ghosts just came out and they only had one used copy but 5 copies of AC 4 they're not going to pay as much for another used copy of AC4 compared to CoD Ghosts.

    That logic, I had to reread it a couple times. True buying a used game reduces the amount in circulation but riddle me this. When I walk into a game store and want to buy a used game, say the new pokemon game and they have a few copies left, now either I'm very, very lucky to get there just in time to get one before they're all gone
    people are constantly going in there and trading in their used game because of the demand and higher trade in value which doesn't help the devs at all. If it's the first option than a lot of people must not be trading games in and Gamestop would be having a terrible time getting business and we know that's not the case.

    Probably but the option to pirate has been around since almost the start of games, at this point I really don't think it has any significant impact since we'll never have seen it without the option of piracy. I mean the demand is obviously high enough that Nintendo, Sony and MS (though I have yet to see and retro games on XBL) would have taken the effort to make them available.

    If they didn't it would have given people MORE of a reason to download ROMS they just couldn't get ahold of anymore and therein would be the loophole. We wouldn't have to wait till a company dies for games to not be available anymore if they decided to not make them available on the retro console. Even so are you telling me that EVERY retro game Nintendo has made are on the virtual console?
    Last edited: Apr 2, 2014
  2. Slate

    Slate Begin Your Adventure

    Me saying "if" more along the lines of when people say "you may have won our last match but you have no idea of what I'm going to do now" when the other person clearly did win the last match. It would have been more precise to say "because it happens" rather than "if", but it isn't really an error either.

    High is pretty subjective. I didn't say it wouldn't be high. What I said was that it would not be as much. That's all. If they sold a million copies, maybe they would have sold 1.4 million without the influence of piracy. If they sold 10 million maybe it would have been 14 million. If they sold 100 maybe it could haven been 140. Obviously no one knows the exact number of games that would have been bought if not for the influence of piracy.

    You haven't answered the question. The question was how much time does it take? Two weeks? A month? I have my own responsibilities to handle and I'm still able to find time to respond, usually within a day.

    Featured Trade Values | GameStop

    For starters, that's filtering for people who are open enough to go online and admit that they are pirating. Most people will not flat out tell you that there should be no copyright law so they'll have some excuse as to why it is okay for them to pirate but not anybody else. You assuming it is 25% doesn't make it true. My guess based on my own personal anecdotal experience with human nature is that it'd be lower, but I'm not pretending to know or even have a close estimate of the minimum or maximum conversion rates when it comes to something as nuanced as piracy.

    Okay, Notch does not mind piracy, so what? For every developer who doesn't mind piracy there are many more who do. You're not implying it is okay to pirate from everyone just because Notch is okay with it, are you?

    There's no way of knowing that people who pirate games generate more word of mouth than people who buy video games used. There's no way of knowing how many people play the games as a result. There's also no way of knowing if those people buy new games, used games, or just pirate the games, or at what rate. Piracy does not only consist of torrents and piracy does not only take place on PC. Consoles are affected as well. You could say "they're less likely due to viruses or social stigma around piracy" but then I could say "they are more likely due to decreased cost or convenience". It is all anecdotal and there is no way of getting the exact amount.

    This "advertisement" argument could be used to justify almost anything. "Yeah, I stole a pack of gum, but I told all my friends to visit the market, I'm sure it balances out" "Yeah, I wrote graffiti on their wall, but I am a regular customer who spends at least a thousand dollars a year at their store, it evens out."

    It would have been nice if you had linked to that originally but okay. That is one developer's guess. It could even be true that used games have a larger impact on game sales than piracy.

    Though that is probably because used games have been institutionalized. They've become the norm and they are fully available for anyone who walks into a GameStop. Imagine if instead of offering you a used copy when you walked into a GameStop, they offered you a pirated burned copy that was fully functional, and it was perfectly legal.

    I am guessing developers would change their tune. Developers would probably also tell you that piracy has a larger impact on their sales than people stealing the physical games out of the stores. That doesn't mean stealing the games is okay, just that it is not as prevalent.

    Again, you could justify almost anything if your standard is "it does not have as large of an impact as used games sales". I could say "it is okay for me to walk into a store and steal a physical game because it does not have as large of an impact on sales as used games do". Used games sales are a legitimate business expense just like shipping, manufacturing, developing, storing, advertising, etc. Just because piracy is not as high as these costs doesn't justify it.

    Besides that, it is not just about the publishers. Stores like GameStop, Walmart, or smaller independent video game stores need to make a profit as well and used games are one tool to do so.

    Featured Trade Values | GameStop

    Again, GameStop has notably bad trade in values. You could get a better deal selling directly to an individual. I am guessing other video game stores might offer a better trade in value but I can't say for certain as I don't have much experience with them.

    I don't know if it is luck, I think it is more along the line that GameStop prices their used games at the highest value they think they can get away with to sell exactly what is in their stock. If they all sold out quickly, they would raise their prices, if they sold out really slowly, they'd probably decrease their prices. Again, the game stores are people too.. Just because the profit is not going directly to the publisher doesn't make it a bad thing.

    Your argument is that it isn't a big impact because it has always been around? Really? Theft has always been around. Murder has always been around. Most crimes have been around in some form or another at some point. I don't know how you can come up with the notion that it always having been around makes it okay.

    Yes, demand is still high enough even after piracy to create these online stores. There are lots of illegitimate practices that hurt businesses. Vandalism, theft, "friendly" fraud, etc. Many businesses are still able to make a profit even after dealing with all these issues. That doesn't make them okay. Again, demand still exists even after the availability piracy! The demand just isn't as high as it would have been without piracy!

    No, I am not saying every retro game is or will be made available on virtual console. Just that no one knows which games or when until the companies officially announce/decide. Even the companies themselves probably do not know for certain which games will be available on their virtual consoles years from now. Some people thought Earthbound would never be made available on virtual console due to copyright issues but it was eventually put on the Wii U. The availability on virtual consoles is just one argument of many. I've addressed the abandon ware issue (eg. the notion that software should not be protected by copyright because it is not currently commercially exploited) so many times in earlier posts that I don't even see the need to bring up all my arguments against it again.
    Last edited: Apr 2, 2014
  3. I realise that this is happening and that you took the word "if" rather literally, but you are speaking as though it's okay to pirate it because the devs are still making money from people who didn't pirate it.
  4. Shadow

    Shadow ಠ_ಠ

    Fair enough

    Well that's you. I do tend to get busy randomly and completely forget about specific topics. I don't continue to dwell on arguments after I exit the tab.

    I don't really see your point here? Plus I personally lack respect for gamers who buy a game just to beat it in a week and trade it in for little value to get something else, you have to be really hurting for money to go that route or not a big game enthusiast

    Lot of people have no problem admitting they pirate, people pirate music all the damn time and it's so overlooked now, of course we can only guesstimate as there are afaik no real numbers for piracy

    I'm implying that even he knows that people don't just pirate because they're greedy little thieves. He understands not everyone has the money to buy the software and most of the time people do go back and purchase it when they can

    The issue here with piracy vs actually buying a game on something like steam is that it's easy now. People have been saying that for a while about steam.

    That ease is the same thing we're getting with Steam. Difference is devs profit from us.

    By that logic I can steal from someone and resell their items entirely to profit me because hey I need to make a profit too (disregarding that places like walmart that sell new copies of games already have a distributors fee)

    I'm selling someone elses items and they get no profit from it, it's not a bad thing though. Also in no way is a game store people, they're corporations and should be thought of as such.

    Without piracy less people would even have the game, maybe there would be a lot less gamers, maybe that would mean the industry wouldn't be as big as it is or maybe gamers would be more trapped and helpless to corporate greed when it comes to the companies telling gamers how and when they can play.

    So then roms are still a viable option for now
  5. CROWley

    CROWley Inactive

    What? What does that matter? Why do they have to keep the game or continue to replay it. Maybe they just want to experience as many games as possible and don't care about completing everything. Do you have respect for other gamers by default?
  6. Shadow

    Shadow ಠ_ಠ

    That's just how I feel personally. Gamers usually keep their games and revel in their collections because gaming is a hobby and like most hobbies people tend to collect things. I just see it as a kind of casual gamer who just wants to play a game, beat it then trade it in to Gamestop and buy another used game. It's likely he doesn't have consistant friends he plays with by switching games so often and he would frequent places like Gamestop which means no money for the devs from him. Just a casual who wants to get his jollies off on a form of entertainment he probably still thinks is for high school and college teens. CoD and Fifa anyone?
  7. CROWley

    CROWley Inactive

    Still doesn't make sense to me. Back in the day all I had was handhelds. I constantly bought and sold games because most sucked or I lost interest. The only reason I got into Pokemon was because they were easy to understand, beat and overall made sense. Funny thing is, I got out of them when I became more of a serious gamer. Not giving money to greedy douchebag dev's sounds like a plus in my book. Gamestop isn't the only place to buy and sell games and what does it matter if somebody had frequent friends to play with? I prefer to play alone.
  8. Shadow

    Shadow ಠ_ಠ

    You just said it yourself. you weren't a serious gamer back then. I dislike casual gamers. They're abundant enough to keep the greedy corporate game companies afloat while ignoring hardcore fan bases. Capcom is paying for it. The casuals wanted RE to be more action packed and "new over the shoulder style" when it was a survival horror game. The hardcore fans hated it but the casuals loved it and even said things like the old RE control style was bad or the game wasn't good. I hate to see Capcom sink because they do have the ability to bring RE back to its roots but if this is what it takes.


    That entirely depends what game you buy
  9. WasNotWhyNot

    WasNotWhyNot idiot visionary

    Shadow likes this.
  10. CROWley

    CROWley Inactive

    Half the time I can't tell the difference between dev's and publishers, not that I really care.
    THQ? Good riddance.
    CashCon? You couldn't pay me enough to buy one of their games used.
    Violation? May they die in a fire.
    Bioware? I seriously hope Dragon Age III doesn't suck or I'm done with their games.
    EA? Good god I would love to end them.

    Piranha Bites, TopWare Interactive, CDProjekt Red? All good in my book.
  11. Shadow

    Shadow ಠ_ಠ

    Devs make the games, publishers well publish it. For example EA published Spore but Maxis developed it.

    Off topic. I miss Rare :(
  12. CROWley

    CROWley Inactive

    I meant, most of the time I can't tell if somebody is a dev or publisher, either way I don't have positive feelings for many of them.
  13. Shadow

    Shadow ಠ_ಠ

    Yeah it can be confusing at times, even I get mixed up.
  14. Slate

    Slate Begin Your Adventure

    I'm not saying it is a good deal, but your post made it sound as if $10 was the most you could get even if you bought a brand new game and sold it back and I was just saying you can get $30+.

    Okay, as long as you're saying it's a guesstimate. I just don't think you should claim "at least 25%" as if it is just some proven fact.

    I didn't try to say they were just greedy thieves. Does not having the money for something justify pirating it? I mean, I think most people understand that when you can't afford something, you should either save up or do without. If I went into a store, and stole something, then paid the store the money for it later I think most people would agree it's unethical. As far as I can tell Notch didn't claim that most people who pirate later go back and buy the game.

    I think we can both agree tools like Steam/Netflix are good and help reduce piracy rates. Are you implying that piracy is justified if a game or show isn't on Steam or Netflix or is easily or cheaply accessible? The problem was you said piracy was justified because of the word of mouth it could generate. Yes, Steam helps to curb piracy, and if someone switches from pirating to Steam I'm all for it. Though there are still people pirating... That is what I'm opposed to.

    Stealing to make a profit would kind of create a bigger problem in the course of solving a problem. Yes, they need to make a profit to survive but that doesn't justify stealing in the process. That would be like me telling someone they should donate money to the poor, so they become an assassin in order to raise money for the poor. The crime they're committing to reach the goal outweighs the good caused by the goal.

    They got a profit from it when you bought the original game. Part of what you bought is the right to resell it. That is why you frequently pay less money for digital copies. Game Stores and corporations consist of people. It's people who own the stores and people who are employed at the stores and people who shop at the stores and people who will be affected if the store goes out of business.

    True, less people would have the game. I tend to think most gamers who pirate wouldn't stop gaming if piracy wasn't an option and they'd just move onto other cheaper games or they'd find a way to pay for the games they thought they needed to pirate. Lots of hobbies are expensive. Golf can be expensive but I don't know of people saying the golfers are helpless because of the greedy golfing industry.

    What I said was that I'm against the concept of abondonware (eg. that copyright should expire just because it is not currently commercially exploited), which would preclude the use of most ROMs. Partly because even if a game isn't currently being sold the company might decide to sell it at some point in the future.

    This is what the backup/archival law is for. I would be fine with someone backing up a game ROM so it could be played by future generations after the 75 year copyright expires. I just think that releasing emulators for current systems is mostly used to download illegitimate games online, so I would rather the people wait around 75 years after a console is released before developing an emulator for that console.
    Last edited: May 5, 2014
  15. WasNotWhyNot

    WasNotWhyNot idiot visionary

    how can you be against abandonware

    have you ever heard of albion? have you ever heard of a mind forever voyaging? have you ever heard of obitus?

    yes I'm namedropping stuff, but nobody
    is going to buy those IPs and nobody is going to bring them back. they have extremely minor followings and recognition, it would be dumb business. the companies that made them are defunct and every single person involved with making the games has moved on with their lives.

    I can't imagine any feasible situation that these IPs would reappear besides the creator suddenly wanting to make a kickstarter for remaking or continuing one of those IPs and I believe the creator's previous work being easily accessible would be of greater benefit to funding his future endeavor than making sure the second-hand market gets their jollies.

    these games aren't available under any digital distribution and you could easily pay $70+ for a physical copy of one.

    do you really think the gateway to enjoying old games should cost more than a new game? the intent of copyright isn't to protect the interests of ebay.com. copyright should protect businesses, not stifle artifacts, antiques, and curiosities.
  16. Slate

    Slate Begin Your Adventure

    I haven't heard of any of those games. If the creators really believed that they're welcome to make their project public domain. The second hand market can have an influence on the sales of the original title. People, especially collectors would probably be more reluctant to buy new games if they knew that in 5-10 years the game would be available everywhere for free.

    For rare and high demand games, sure. Just like with baseball cards or some other rare sought after object that is no longer in production. Part of what is being bought is a license to your original copy and the right to resell the game. I like the notion that some video games are physically limited just like a real object is. Isn't it up to the creator to decide how many copies are released? What if they just want to produce something that only a few friends can use? Isn't that their right? What if part of the appeal is like that Nintendo World Championships that is given as a prize to the winner of a competition?

    While eBay isn't the primary purpose I think second hand sellers should be given protection just like content creators should be. They've made an investment as well.

    I don't know if 75 years is the right amount of time, maybe it should be 50 or 30, but I also don't like the notion that just because a company isn't currently profiting off of a game that it should immediately or even within a few years enter the public domain. test
    Last edited: May 25, 2014
  17. WasNotWhyNot

    WasNotWhyNot idiot visionary

    collector's don't give a rats about the free availability of a game (specified, internet availability; context: in the sense of doing their collecting). collecting the game trumps over its value. even if copyright law was more lax I bet you high to hell water people would still buy physical games. the appeal to physicality isn't exclusive to legality. in my case, I would have never purchased old games if it wasn't for roms. I'm not going to buy random nes games. nes games vary from being incredibly ahead of their time to buggy amateurish garbage. when a mediocre game like power blade 2 costs two-hundred dollars the purchase only sentiment becomes unreasonable. power blade 2 is not without merit, it is tight and worth playing, but it absolutely isn't worth the price tag that its limited availability has given it.

    given nes games a once-through by emulation, I've become more informed about its library, and have made many purchases accordingly. some games like over horizon I paid a great deal for, because I decided that I needed to own it at all costs. that was not motivated by a desire to support second-hand sellers. I wanted the game. the bulk of the resale market comes down to that simple thing: wanting to hold the game in your hands. they don't really need protection because enthusiasts will always exist.

    you could argue that I'm the exception, but I'm going to argue that I'm the rule. most people who download roms only play extremely well-known console games and likely never finish them in their emulated state. they load them up on their phone or whatever but by and large will never actually finish pokemon sapphire for their second or third time. they're the ones doing the supposed 'damage' but their attach rate demonstrates clearly that they were not interested in these older games besides the surface value of re-experiencing their childhood. you can chalk that as a lost sale for nintendo (except they've yet to have any pokemon on virtual console, and I know the point "you can never know what'll make it on virtual console" has been brought up, but the lost sale is 100% the fault of nintendo and not the pirate if it is unavailable) and I have no argument for that. however, they have NO EFFECT on the second-hand market. a high schooler playing 'mons on his phone will likely never buy a retro game.

    I argue that emulation fuels the second-hand market in the way steam sales do. it does lower the overall worth of individual games, but it generates more interest and more sales overall, making it into a more booming and popular business. I mean, really, do you expect any youth to get into retro gaming if they're expected to purchase every single old game they play? sticking to the law in this matter is anti-videogame. it would create a culture where retro gamers are actively shunned for their oddity and conviction to an extremely costly and limited niche (as they already are to some degree, making it an only adult/rich person's club would make it worse), because new gamers would be unable to do any personal exploration.

    being overwhelmed by the limitations of something is nice in its exclusivity (nevermind that a game developed for the open market with the goal of reaching many homes cannot reasonably be compared to a tournament cartridge), but is ultimately selfish. experiences ripen when they're shared, not when they're hoarded.
  18. BoldHeart

    BoldHeart Loading...

    emulators are great for classic online gaming. i wish i was still able to host emulators online but since i got my new modem, i am unable to do so anymore

Share This Page