By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
SvennoJ said:
Barozi said:

Dizzy in its original form is not available for sale. At least not from the IP holder. 2nd hand is completely irrelevant. The IP holder won't get a single cent from these sales.

"Everyone knows that downloading a 1993 movie would be piracy, so why treat games from the same year any differently?"
That was the point in the article I was trying to counter. Games are NOT being treated differently because emulators emulate the original game, not a remaster or a super late port that are available to purchase. People nowadays don't pirate VHS versions, they pirate versions that are still available in stores.

"you think everyone is only emulating the version they had 20 years ago?"
Wow where did you get that from? If it's not possible anymore to buy the original game from the IP holder then it's completely irrelevant if you owned the game at one point or not. What else should you do? Wait for the IP holder to rerelease it on floppy discs/cartridges/cassette tapes?

Why are 2nd hand sales irrelevant, why does it suddenly matter whether the original IP holder gets any money? With books and movies, the author, actors, director can be long dead and it's still piracy! Why is it different for games, that's what the article is about.

Movies aren't availale for sale in their original form either. I can't buy 35mm reels for one, nor first release VHS or Laserdisc versions, while many modern movies have limited runs or never even get published over here. So does that make it OK to pirate them? What else should you do? Actually I watched some movies I really wanted to see but aren't available here, on You Tube. For example the TV upload from Wir Kinder vom Bahnhof Zoo. That still doesn't make it right.

Anyway, your stance is that if you can't easily buy it in the shop, go ahead and pirate it. That sounds a lot like entitlement. It's the same with tv shows nowadays. It aired somewhere in the world so now it's public domain, that's simply not the case.

If trade in old games picks up, the chance of actual carefully restored re-releases goes up, plus people will be more careful with the old stuff. We might see more things like the NES classic appearing, and more support for them. It's not hurting new games, it is hurting the chances of official emulation hardware and the value of collecting games.

But yeah, with books and movies, you wait for a rerelease, or find a second hand copy. Why are games different. Yet I do realize it has a positive aspect on the industry too. From the few movies I've pirated, I went on to buy them on blu-ray once released here. I'm still waiting for Stalker to release on blu-ray over here. (At least games don't suffer from region codes anymore) It's not any easier to get old movies. The director and original writer are long dead, still not ok to pirate it!

"With books and movies, the author, actors, director can be long dead and it's still piracy! Why is it different for games, that's what the article is about."
But it's not different at all. If the movie or book or game is still being sold by a legal successor of the creator, they are still getting the money they earned.
If it's not available to buy they wouldn't get anything.
It's not about what's right. It's well known that it still IS piracy and I don't see anyone disputing this. But it's at least morally justifiable and that's what especially emulation is about.