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

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - PlayStation Preservation Team is What Nintendo Should Be Doing Too

Under what entitlement would the public have in owning something they did not create? If I build a chair... and I don't want my chair anymore, I have to give it to somebody????



Around the Network
Chrkeller said:

Under what entitlement would the public have in owning something they did not create? If I build a chair... and I don't want my chair anymore, I have to give it to somebody????

Sometimes I think interest is more important than private interest. Like, should Lord of the Rings copyright belongs to companies and Tolkien descendents forever or should they, eventually, become public property? 

This not a matter of discussion. Laws have long ago settled books like that will become public domain once the license expires 

I have no idea what was settled for games though because I believe the copyright belongs to companies and not creators and a company can survive for centuries. I don't think games should remain private property forever though and must become public eventually 

But alas, this is a pretty big discussion. I have no background in laws to elaborate a solid position here 



IcaroRibeiro said:
Chrkeller said:

Under what entitlement would the public have in owning something they did not create? If I build a chair... and I don't want my chair anymore, I have to give it to somebody????

Sometimes I think interest is more important than private interest. Like, should Lord of the Rings copyright belongs to companies and Tolkien descendents forever or should they, eventually, become public property? 

This not a matter of discussion. Laws have long ago settled books like that will become public domain once the license expires 

I have no idea what was settled for games though because I believe the copyright belongs to companies and not creators and a company can survive for centuries. I don't think games should remain private property forever though and must become public eventually 

But alas, this is a pretty big discussion. I have no background in laws to elaborate a solid position here 

I read about it briefly yesterday, it seems said license is 95 years.  So.....  at some point it will be public, but not in my lifetime.  

Personally I think Tolken copy right belongs to the family until they decide to sell it.  It can be theirs forever.  It is their property.  I don't know how old Mickey Mouse is, but it still makes money for Disney.  It wouldn't be right to steal their property just because somebody wants it.  How old is Coca Cola?  Should Coke be stripped of their money making cow?    



So, back when the Snes Mini and also when the NSO were unveiled many games kept being mentioned on a lot of peoples' wishlist, and one of them was Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles 4: Turtles in Time. Gamers all over the world love it since 1992, but the most likely explanation for its' absence  are licensing problems. 

Now it is going to be part of the Cowabunga Collection that will be released someday. I want it.

I think the question here is to define which games should and should not be preserved. A tough decision that I would never want to be held accountable for. I do want TMNT4, however, and I know I'm not the only one.



Chrkeller said:
IcaroRibeiro said:

Sometimes I think interest is more important than private interest. Like, should Lord of the Rings copyright belongs to companies and Tolkien descendents forever or should they, eventually, become public property? 

This not a matter of discussion. Laws have long ago settled books like that will become public domain once the license expires 

I have no idea what was settled for games though because I believe the copyright belongs to companies and not creators and a company can survive for centuries. I don't think games should remain private property forever though and must become public eventually 

But alas, this is a pretty big discussion. I have no background in laws to elaborate a solid position here 

I read about it briefly yesterday, it seems said license is 95 years.  So.....  at some point it will be public, but not in my lifetime.  

Personally I think Tolken copy right belongs to the family until they decide to sell it.  It can be theirs forever.  It is their property.  I don't know how old Mickey Mouse is, but it still makes money for Disney.  It wouldn't be right to steal their property just because somebody wants it.  How old is Coca Cola?  Should Coke be stripped of their money making cow?    

Disney can still making use of Mickey character even if their very first movies become public property 

The point of culture pieces becoming public is to recognize them as piece of arts where their cultural and historical values offset their economical value. Public domain artwork is great because can be freely used for educational and recreational purposes. Not everything must be subject of capitalism, there are more important things in society than providing infinite money for privileged people who just have the luck to born in the families as past artists. I personally couldn't care less if JK Rowlling great-great-great-great children won't profit from her work

For once, most of theatrical plays are based on public domain plays. Imagine how dreadful would be the state of Theater as a art field if there was no public domain stories and they absolutely need to pay copyrights for children plays on high school? 

Last edited by IcaroRibeiro - on 29 April 2022

Around the Network
Chrkeller said:

Under what entitlement would the public have in owning something they did not create? If I build a chair... and I don't want my chair anymore, I have to give it to somebody????

This is actually done for other media already. Under german law print publishers have to give a copy of their published print work to the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek (german national library) for archival. Internationally similar laws exist, I think in the US it is the Library of Congress that gets the archival copies. This also isn't a big intrusion into the rights of the company, as they already produce many copies. I think similar laws exist for movies.

Similarly it could work for games. That idea isn't especially strange, seeing as this already happens for other media. I don't know why many in this thread consider this idea impossible.



3DS-FC: 4511-1768-7903 (Mii-Name: Mnementh), Nintendo-Network-ID: Mnementh, Switch: SW-7706-3819-9381 (Mnementh)

my greatest games: 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021

10 years greatest game event!

bets: [peak year] [+], [1], [2], [3], [4]

IcaroRibeiro said:
Chrkeller said:

Under what entitlement would the public have in owning something they did not create? If I build a chair... and I don't want my chair anymore, I have to give it to somebody????

Sometimes I think interest is more important than private interest. Like, should Lord of the Rings copyright belongs to companies and Tolkien descendents forever or should they, eventually, become public property? 

This not a matter of discussion. Laws have long ago settled books like that will become public domain once the license expires 

I have no idea what was settled for games though because I believe the copyright belongs to companies and not creators and a company can survive for centuries. I don't think games should remain private property forever though and must become public eventually 

But alas, this is a pretty big discussion. I have no background in laws to elaborate a solid position here 

In european copyright the rights holder can only be a natural person, not a company. A company can hold exclusive marketing rights, but not the copyright itself. For many creations multiple creators are named, like movies. In american law the copyright term starts to expire with the creation of the work, not the death of the author.



3DS-FC: 4511-1768-7903 (Mii-Name: Mnementh), Nintendo-Network-ID: Mnementh, Switch: SW-7706-3819-9381 (Mnementh)

my greatest games: 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021

10 years greatest game event!

bets: [peak year] [+], [1], [2], [3], [4]

IcaroRibeiro said:
Chrkeller said:

I read about it briefly yesterday, it seems said license is 95 years.  So.....  at some point it will be public, but not in my lifetime.  

Personally I think Tolken copy right belongs to the family until they decide to sell it.  It can be theirs forever.  It is their property.  I don't know how old Mickey Mouse is, but it still makes money for Disney.  It wouldn't be right to steal their property just because somebody wants it.  How old is Coca Cola?  Should Coke be stripped of their money making cow?    

Disney can still making use of Mickey character even if their very first movies become public property 

The point of culture pieces becoming public is to recognize them as piece of arts where their cultural and historical values offset their economical value. Public domain artwork is great because can be freely used for educational and recreational purposes. Not everything must be subject of capitalism, there are more important things in society than providing infinite money for privileged people who just have the luck to born in the families as past artists. I personally couldn't care less if JK Rowlling great-great-great-great children won't profit from her work

For once, most of theatrical plays are based on public domain plays. Imagine how dreadful would be the state of Theater as a art field if there was no public domain stories and they absolutely need to pay copyrights for children plays on high school? 

Just think: if the descendants of Homer still owned the rights to the Odyssee, the battle of Troy and Iason and the Argonauts. So many movies and games and books couldn't exist.



3DS-FC: 4511-1768-7903 (Mii-Name: Mnementh), Nintendo-Network-ID: Mnementh, Switch: SW-7706-3819-9381 (Mnementh)

my greatest games: 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021

10 years greatest game event!

bets: [peak year] [+], [1], [2], [3], [4]

IcaroRibeiro said:
Bofferbrauer2 said:

They don't need to want to destroy a game, it suffices that they don't care.

Here are 2 lists of lost video games. If you look closely, there are many that were made after 2000, and even quite a few after 2010.

https://lostmediawiki.com/Category:Lost_video_games

https://lostmediaarchive.fandom.com/wiki/Category:Lost_Video_Games

This is why video game preservation is important, every year there are more that could be added to the list. And there will potentially be an onslaught of them when Apple makes it's threat true that it will remove every single game that hasn't been updated in 2 years.

Another question is, that even if the game still exists, can it still be run? Try running a 16-bit windows game (or one with a 16-bit installer) on a modern 64-bit OS and hardware for instance. It's impossible to do without virtualization or emulation (if a 3D accelerator (GPU) is needed, then only emulation is a possibility). Some 80's arcade games were so matched to the tech of the arcade hardware that they still run like shit or not at all on high-end PCs to this day despite technically being billion times faster.

If there hadn't be a large abandonware community in the late 90's through today, then many pre-internet games would have been lost forever by now. And their master tapes (which allow to access and edit the code - if the engine still exists, that is) are for the most part really lost, so you can't update them to run on modern hardware without trickery.

And this is not an issue. Like... at all. Do you think every painting ever made in humanity History is preserved in some way? Any obscure movie ever recorded in academic spaces or even domestic productions? Every piece of poetry ever written? 

Why pursue to build such insane archive with every piece of gaming ever commercialy released? Do you have any idea of how many games are made every day for tech students and released on Mobile stores? Do you need to preserve them as well?

There are pieces of gaming that have historical and cultural importance, some have significance because they introduce some design concepts that can be used in future 

But the point is we aren't losing knowledge of how to make games. Knowledge is preserved, technology skills are preserved, modern games inherit the concepts of older relevant games and that's all. We don't need to keep the bits of everything. I understand the concern with older relevant rooms from the 70's and the 80's that might be relevant and are being lost, got it. But modern games? They definitely don't need any kind of expensive protection 

Indeed this game preservation nonsense is nothing but a buzzword for companies to profit over older games. It's to create a perceived monetary value of importance based on historical value which is somewhat how other piece of arts get more value with time. Is something Nintendo realized during seventh gen and other companies ignored for so long: Console gamers are slowly approaching the 40-50 years old demographic 

What does it mean? Well, let's say boomers have a tendency to think older = better to pretty much everything, now it's gen X who is approaching the second half of their lifes and they are starting to repeating Boomers behavior, their preferences for games are no exception

To exploit the feelings of nostalgia and remind their golden years of childhood they need to ensure past games can still run and play alright  that's why they are finally developing those emulation teams to make older games playable again, with some fees and costs of course 

Off-topic. Anecdotal, but I find very interesting using this forum because people here are, in average, older than most of my gaming circle (who are basically people from 16 to 24). You guys help me to give perspective people from my generation and younger than me absolutely don't share. People of my age would never, ever, think not playing an online game ever again to be a concern. 

I think the problem is that we're not talking about the same thing.

With preservation of video games, I'm not talking just about the games themselves, but about their source code.

Just look at the part I bolded from your response. The answer is clearly no. But you don't just take a picture of the Mona Lisa with a camera and put it online and then claim that this way, the painting has been preserved. Yet this is what I read here and what so many seem to understand when they say video game conservation.

As for the off-topic: Glad to give you a view from another angle and perspective.



Chrkeller said:

Under what entitlement would the public have in owning something they did not create? If I build a chair... and I don't want my chair anymore, I have to give it to somebody????

Is this a response to me?



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.