• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Ethically is buying a game better than emulating?

Falk

that puzzling face
Let's say this kid finishes high school, wants to get into college, and is forced to sell all his old games and consoles. It wasn't an easy decision.

By emulating rather than buying second-hand, you are robbing this poor kid's chance to go to college and eventually graduate, receive his degree and become embroiled in massive student debt with no glimmer of hope of actually being employed anyway.

For shame, man. For shame. I hope you feel good about emulating.
 

RedSwirl

Junior Member
Where I start to have a real problem is when resold copies of that game cost like $200. Unless I'm a hardcore collector that's just unreasonable, and that tends to be where I draw the line and just emulate. If I can buy a really old game from a reseller (usually an established store) for like $20 I'll do that, but probably not if it's like $75 or ore.

That said, I'd given up all hope of seeing Strider 2 re-released and ended up downloading an ISO a few weeks before it showed up on PSN. I intend to buy it on PSN.
 

Alchemy

Member
Let's say this kid finishes high school, wants to get into college, and is forced to sell all his old games and consoles. It wasn't an easy decision.

By emulating rather than buying second-hand, you are robbing this poor kid's chance to go to college and eventually graduate, receive his degree and become embroiled in massive student debt with no glimmer of hope of actually being employed anyway.

For shame, man. For shame. I hope you feel good about emulating.

I hope this is a joke... but either way there will always be collectors who want physical copies of games to buy second hand stuff. I emulate lots of old games (specifically stuff that is fan translated, another benefit of emulation) and still collect the ones I can because I like having the physical games and consoles.

Most people aren't going to go through a reseller to play a 30 year old game, they just won't play it. I'd prefer more gamers actually play old classics instead of get stuck having to decide if it is worth $200 for a car, then to track down a functioning old console.
 
Emulation is a grey area, but at the end of the day either you see a scenario where it's okay or you don't. Personally, I do think there are situations where ethically it's acceptable.
 
Let's say this kid finishes high school, wants to get into college, and is forced to sell all his old games and consoles. It wasn't an easy decision.

By emulating rather than buying second-hand, you are robbing this poor kid's chance to go to college and eventually graduate, receive his degree and become embroiled in massive student debt with no glimmer of hope of actually being employed anyway.

For shame, man. For shame. I hope you feel good about emulating.

Let's say you are thirsty. You see a little girl selling lemonade, but you know you could just walk to the park and drink from the public fountain, so you do. That little girl then can't afford the bicycle she wanted, and is forced to steal it. She spends the rest of her childhood in and out of juvenile detention, until she turns 18 and starts doing even more violent crimes. She robs a convenient store, and in a frantic, terrifying moment she accidentally shoots the attendant. She goes to jail, and a couple years later she is murdered in the shower.

This girl was killed all because you didn't buy her lemonade. For shame!
 

Mr Nash

square pies = communism
Well, I'm not interested in a discussion on legality because the legality is fairly clear, depending on where you live. When your choices are "pay this guy $1000 for something he paid $50 for" and piracy and there is nothing else, I'm not gonna look down on the person who chooses to go the free way. That's my moral standpoint. Personally, I love to own the things, but that's not everyone.

This is pretty much how I look at it as well. I'm not going to give someone a hard time for choosing to emulate Eliminate Down or Harmful Park instead of forking out several hundred dollars for physical copies of the game.
 

Cyrano

Member
Well, I'm not interested in a discussion on legality because the legality is fairly clear, depending on where you live. When your choices are "pay this guy $1000 for something he paid $50 for" and piracy and there is nothing else, I'm not gonna look down on the person who chooses to go the free way. That's my moral standpoint. Personally, I love to own the things, but that's not everyone.
Well, there is a feasibility argument here, past a certain point. In ten or maybe twenty years, I suspect a working cart of almost any SNES game will be nigh impossible to find (short of those which are based on replacement carts, which would be piracy anyway).

Granted, we aren't there yet but if cost becomes an issue and the purpose is enrichment, I don't find there to be anything other than a legal argument to be had. Digital media just... isn't really the same as analog media. It's designed with obsolescence in mind. Then again, most of our infrastructure is this way now.
 

Falk

that puzzling face
Let's say you are thirsty. You see a little girl selling lemonade, but you know you could just walk to the park and drink from the public fountain, so you do. That little girl then can't afford the bicycle she wanted, and is forced to steal it. She spends the rest of her childhood in and out of juvenile detention, until she turns 18 and starts doing even more violent crimes. She robs a convenient store, and in a frantic, terrifying moment she accidentally shoots the attendant. She goes to jail, and a couple years later she is murdered in the shower.

This girl was killed all because you didn't buy her lemonade. For shame!

The world truly is full of monsters!
 
It depends.

If the choice is between emulation or, say, paying up the ass on eBay for some rare out-of-print physical copy, then it makes no difference to me. The developer isn't making a cent out of either transaction anyway.

If there are options available to buy the game on platforms that are still supported, though, there's no real excuse for it.
 
But to be perfectly clear:

Yes. Buying the product is better than fucking pirating it.

I don't even know why some of you are entertaining the idea that the OP is asking anything but.
 

REDSLATE

Member
The "preservation" argument doesn't work for 99.999999% of all games, because the DMCA specifically allows for preservation through backups, by non-profit archival organizations.
Core gamers have done a far better job archiving game data than an official organization could ever hope to.

It doesn't matter what the DMCA allows, because it applies only to the USA. Also, if it were to those people, we wouldn't be this far with the preservation of games. By preserving games I'm talking about people dumping the images and making them accessible forever.
I agree. Due to the combined efforts of individuals, content that would otherwise have been lost is readily accessible, and gaming is all the better for it.
 
As for a "complete" C64 set, nobody who owned a C64 ever owned a complete set, even with the rampant C64 piracy of the time. An individual having a complete ROM set of any major game system is definitely not ethical, I don't know of one that doesn't have officially licensed games or collections on sale (for example, I have an officially licensed C64 collection on iPad).

Why is it not ethical? What is ethical about modern copyright law and the application of it to videogames over 30 years old? Copyright in the US used to be less than 30 years - was that unethical?
 
If we want to get really deep in this, the idea that there's any ethical value to creative works being copyright protected thirty years later is questionable at best. The actual purpose of copyright is to incentivize the creation of new works by protecting them early in their lifetime, while ensuring a rich public domain is populated over time. If we measure by the original duration of copyright in the US, every significant NES release would be out of copyright in the next three years. I have an extremely hard time granting any ethical legitimacy to extensions of copyright that abandoned that original purpose in favor of corporate interests.

That probably happened with Earthbound. You could argue it's entirely Nintendo's fault for not having put it up earlier, but still.

The idea that Earthbound has sold less well as a result of piracy is, I think, maybe the best possible example to show why this line of thought is fallacious.

Earthbound was a complete flop across the board when it was originally released in the US; it sold very poorly and didn't get any traction critically either. The obsessive fandom for Earthbound, and the level of interest that drove it to even be released on VC in the first place, wasn't built up by the people who bought and played it when it was first released (who were a pretty small group, all told, and many of whom never even liked the game.) In actuality, it was driven by all the people who emulated the game over the years and built its reputation.

What about peoples opinion on pirating a copy of a game you've bought in the past?

Given that taking backups of software is widely recognized as an ethical right (if one that is frequently unreasonably criminalized) I'd be hard-pressed to find a line of reasoning that would consider what's essentially a late backup to be wildly unreasonable.

Considering one of those is a legal practice, and the other is not, I'd say the "ethics" discussion should be wrapped up pretty quick.

....really?
 
Emulation is a grey area, but at the end of the day either you see a scenario where it's okay or you don't. Personally, I do think there are situations where ethically it's acceptable.

Emulation isn't a grey area at all. Emulators are perfectly legal and emulation can be too depending on what software is being emulated. Every classic DOS era game being sold on GOG is packaged with DOSBox, which is just a DOS emulator. You are legally buying the game on GOG and getting an accompanying open source emulator to play it. You buy a Virtual Console game on your Wii, it is just a ROM wrapped in an emulator. So many classic collections are nothing more than ROM's packaged with emulators.

The only grey area in emulation comes from the legality of the software. Either from the questionable state of 'abandonware' or from the end-user owning a legal copy of the software to begin with.
 

Terrell

Member
I'm not so sure that it does. The one thing a used market does is establish a fair value for content.

Sorry, no, that's not universally true. As long as there are games with a limited run, the idea that used games are priced at "fair" market value for content is a joke. They're priced as COLLECTIBLES, not content. That's the problem with your statement.
 

beril

Member
Why is it not ethical? What is ethical about modern copyright law and the application of it to videogames over 30 years old? Copyright in the US used to be less than 30 years - was that unethical?

Plenty of laws from 1790 would seem unethical today yes, which is why it's been amended several times. If there is still demand for something after 30 years, why the hell wouldn't the developer/copyright owner be entitled to a cut or to be able to control the distribution?
 

petran79

Banned
if companies like SNK use finalburn emulator illegaly on their neo geo x portable and get away with it, its ok for the rest of us
 
Plenty of laws from 1790 would seem unethical today yes, which is why it's been amended several times. If there is still demand for something after 30 years, why the hell wouldn't the developer/copyright owner be entitled to a cut or to be able to control the distribution?
Your first statement is ignorant of the process of how laws are formed, unless you think pot being criminalized to the extent of heroin is ethical, or bans on gay marriage are ethical, in which case it's just bizarre.

The second statement would seem to indicate that you think copyright should be infinite. Am I correct in this assumption? There is still demand for Paradise Lost, should Milton's ancestors be able to sue for residuals or remove it from distribution?
 
It depends.

If the choice is between emulation or, say, paying up the ass on eBay for some rare out-of-print physical copy, then it makes no difference to me. The developer isn't making a cent out of either transaction anyway.

If there are options available to buy the game on platforms that are still supported, though, there's no real excuse for it.

How come, if the price to buy a copy is too high, one of the options is to not play the game. You don't own it. You can't afford it. Then just play something else.

The fact that so many people seem to feel like they are entitled to play every single game they want is a problem.
 

fijim

Banned
What is worse, a guy buys a collectible out of print game, but then doesn't have enough food to feed his kid, or he emulates it and his kid survives?

And no, he can't just not play the game, I mean this is a gaming forum HE HAS TO PLAY IT MAN!
 
If vidya games is anything like records, there are two straight truth facts:

1) Reissues don't lower the originals price
2) Having heard records from any places necessary drives people to buy reissues when they come available, not the opposite. More so on the obscure records, but it also applies to any records that have not been available for a while.

If someone is going to just play the record on Youtube, they weren't going to buy the reissue in the first place regardless. I can't vouch for everyone on the video games side, but it at least applies to myself.
 

wrowa

Member
Let's say this kid finishes high school, wants to get into college, and is forced to sell all his old games and consoles. It wasn't an easy decision.

By emulating rather than buying second-hand, you are robbing this poor kid's chance to go to college and eventually graduate, receive his degree and become embroiled in massive student debt with no glimmer of hope of actually being employed anyway.

For shame, man. For shame. I hope you feel good about emulating.

Hopefully he has a collection of SNES games, because at the rate those are going for these days, the kid won't have to worry about college costs anymore. :p
 

Gotchaye

Member
How come, if the price to buy a copy is too high, one of the options is to not play the game. You don't own it. You can't afford it. Then just play something else.

The fact that so many people seem to feel like they are entitled to play every single game they want is a problem.

I'm not sure what response you're looking for here other than to have the poster you quoted quote their post back at you. Like, surely you don't actually think that people feel like they must play some out-of-print game. Of course they could choose not to play the game. Nobody's going to disagree with that. I feel like you must have badly misunderstood where other people are coming from if you thought that pointing that out was likely to be helpful.

The reason people don't bring up "or not play the game" as a serious option is that it seems to them to basically always be a worse choice than one of the other two options ("emulate" or "buy a used copy second- or third- or fourth-hand"), given that someone has any real desire to play the game. What they're not seeing is why it's "a problem" that people feel entitled to play old, out-of-print games. Your only substantive contribution is to assert that that is a problem. Great! But the person you're replying to saw you coming and pre-responded, saying that "the developer isn't making a cent" either way. The clear implication is that no one is being wronged, so why not emulate? You can insist it's a morally superior choice to not play the game, but if you can't point to people who are unjustly made worse off by someone emulating rather than just not playing a game at all, you shouldn't be surprised if lots of people think that what you've got is basically just an aesthetic preference.
 

beril

Member
Your first statement is ignorant of the process of how laws are formed, unless you think pot being criminalized to the extent of heroin is ethical, or bans on gay marriage are ethical, in which case it's just bizarre.

The second statement would seem to indicate that you think copyright should be infinite. Am I correct in this assumption? There is still demand for Paradise Lost, should Milton's ancestors be able to sue for residuals or remove it from distribution?

I'm just saying it's silly and pointless to try to go back to the original laws to try make a point. Also in 1790 you couldn't pirate a $100 million production with a couple of clicks; so we need better protection now.

As for infinite copyrights; I don't particularly think the duration needs to be changed for now but I also don't really care if anything else is made public domain again.
 

FX-GMC

Member
I'm just saying it's silly and pointless to try to go back to the original laws to try make a point. Also in 1790 you couldn't pirate a $100 million production with a couple of clicks; so we need better protection now.

As for infinite copyrights; I don't particularly think the duration needs to be changed for now but I also don't really care if anything else is made public domain again.

I can't believe I just read that. How many historical works would now be impossible to procure? Do present and future works not deserve preservation in the same right?
 
The legality of it is a known factor, but it is up to you where to draw an ethical line for emulation and piracy.
People may not agree with this perspective as it is subjective, but I do consider it perfectly reasonable.

I've seen people that played Ocarina of Time back in the day, "emulated it" for years not using their copy, then got the 3DS remake... I see no issue with this. I think anyone that does is insane. You buy each version once for yourself. That's enough to be morally relieved from any argument. Treat each product as an individual license, for you.
 

beril

Member
I can't believe I just read that. How many historical works would now be illegal to own without public domain? Do present works not deserve preservation in the same right?

I'm not saying we should have infinite copyrights, but I just don't think it would be a massive issue.
I've enjoyed tons of old books that are public domain, but also a lot of nearly as old ones that aren't, and old movies and old music recordings none of which are public domain. And the experience really hasn't felt that different. The market tends to find out the value of old media and price or availability hasn't been that much of an issue so far. With modern streaming services and online databases it's unlikely that works will suddenly disappear. Admittedly it's a bit harder with video games though.
 

Jaeger

Member
There are a ton of games that are unobtainable. Arcade boards with no known ports, and the boards are either destroyed, or lost in time. Few in number, etc. Old PC games from overseas. And so on, and so forth. And with arcade games, you would have to do alot to run those. You just don't buy a cartridge and put it in your old SNES. Emulation and ROMs have been pretty much functioning as a vault. A time capsule. Allowing hundreds, if not thousands of gems to be archived and experienced by all who show interest, that without it would be forever lost in time. Regulated to word of mouth, images in magazines, and rumors. The truth is there is no real answer to questions like these, because a grey area exist. Emulation is a very important tool, and game preservation is just one of many positive aspects.
 

Rurunaki

Member
Rare, hard to find, overly expensive games: I would consider emulating unless a port is available.

Newly released, used copies everywhere type of games: I would pay to support the maker.

It all depends on how long the game was originally published, unless you are a collector, I doubt anyone would pay hundreds i not thousands of dollars just to play that one game out of nostalgia.
 

Zee-Row

Banned
I'm not gonna lie , I downloaded the ISO for Shining Force 3 on Saturn. There is just no way for me to afford the prices eBay commands which is between $250-$300. If Sega gave this game a barebones rerelease on a current gen console I would buy it no questions asked.
 
Knowing how long it takes for emulators to come out the current generation, I'd be perfectly fine with it. It's not affecting the games I'm putting out right now. I really would sort of like it because it gives people opportunities to play my games that they wouldn't otherwise due to financial situations. I also wouldn't be seeing any of that money if that person bought it used. I'd also be a hypocrite too if I had a problem with it. I've bought five copies of Final Fantasy IX. I wish Square would say something to me.
 
If there is still demand for something after 30 years, why the hell wouldn't the developer/copyright owner be entitled to a cut or to be able to control the distribution?

If I have something and you want it, why the hell wouldn't you be entitled to just take it? Oh, right, because people just thinking they deserve something doesn't have any bearing on whether they have a true moral claim to it.

The basis of copyright is explicitly an exchange. By default -- and in reality -- creators have no control whatsoever of their work; as soon as they invent something, someone else can copy it, remix it, or otherwise act to modify and distribute it (as, indeed, human beings have done with artistic works throughout recorded history.) Copyright is a bargain struck by the state where it agrees to use its power -- essentially, the threat of legitimate force -- to give creators a temporary benefit they otherwise could not enjoy (limited exclusivity), in exchange for them creating more works and eventually giving those works explicitly to the public domain. More recent copyright law has perverted this arrangement, not because of any actual underlying moral principle, but purely out of a selfish desire by rich copyright-holders to maintain their exclusivity. As long as it's the law there's a degree to which people have to be behaviorally bound by it, but I see no reason whatsoever to grant it any moral legitimacy.

As for infinite copyrights; I don't particularly think the duration needs to be changed for now but I also don't really care if anything else is made public domain again.

It's appalling for a creator of artistic works to take this kind of "fuck you, I've got mine" attitude. As long as you can make sure people are punished for doing stuff you don't like, who cares how much culture and society are bankrupted by the artificial extension of copyright? Jesus.
 

Mista Koo

Member
Honestly? I feel like if it was to support the publisher/developer you're better off buying the latest shovelware they produced for full price and swear to never play it/resell it!
(that is if they still exist :()
 

Megatron

Member
Where I start to have a real problem is when resold copies of that game cost like $200. Unless I'm a hardcore collector that's just unreasonable, and that tends to be where I draw the line and just emulate. If I can buy a really old game from a reseller (usually an established store) for like $20 I'll do that, but probably not if it's like $75 or ore.

That said, I'd given up all hope of seeing Strider 2 re-released and ended up downloading an ISO a few weeks before it showed up on PSN. I intend to buy it on PSN.

It's been out for almost 5 months and is $5.99. What are you waiting for at this point? If you hadn't illegally downloaded it, would you have paid for it by now?
 

extralite

Member
In reply to the corrected question: "is buying used more ethical than to pirate and emulate?" Of course.

OP is assuming that the only interest that needs to be protected is the original maker of the game and not middlemen who drive up the price. But the game market (starting with the new release market) works on the same principle of buy at a lower pricer and sell at a higher price. The $60 game you buy doesn't earn the original maker $60. They had to pay royalties to the platform holder and sold to retailers at a price quite short of those $60. You could buy for a cheaper price if you were to buy directly from publishers, with retailers being eliminated, but when that actually happens (digital distribution) the price is closer to the one we're used to, because publishers use this new model to maximize their profits instead.

Because prices are determined by what seems acceptable. And that is largely dependant on the principle of supply and demand. Piracy creates infinite supply and severly impacts demand for legitimate copies. On the used market, rarity drives up prices. Piracy of discontinued titles might not (directly) impact the original publishers but it obviously does hurt the rest of the market. The market that buys from publishers. If middlemen cannot profit from the market anymore, they will buy less from publishers too. A thriving used market (despite lost sales of still available new titles) does indicate demand and determines the value of a brand, franchise or even the publisher and developer.

You may not like scalpers but what they're doing isn't immoral or illegal. Nobody is forcing you to buy from them. And there may also be cheaper used buying opportunities if you look around or wait. Don't condemn the whole market for the worst sellers (in your opinion, not morally). Sometimes your only option is to boycott by not buying (playing without buying is not boycott btw, piracy can be counted and indicates success).

Piracy of old games also indirectly affects the original publisher. When they do decide to rerelease it or simply because people who play games for free do not have a reason (at that moment) to buy other games, that are available from publishers currently. That is also the reason why BC is cut and services like PS Now are introduced. To encourage spending time and money on new titles and services.

So you may think, I would pay money for this game, if I could give it to the original publisher, but since I cannot it is okay to play for free. It is not, because the post publishing market depends on you having to pay the used prices, and because the publisher would rather you cannot play the old game and buy a new one instead. Or buy their rereleases (might also be a remake).

Basically when you have two choices and ask for which is the moral one, it usually isn't the convenient one but rather the one you don't like. That is why people have to come up with reasons why something "is not immoral".

But there is also the developer's interest to be considered. The publisher serves as a middleman too and takes a cut of the profit the dev could have gotten. The dev also might have liked to have a larger production run and to have reached a larger audience. So sometimes devs make statements that even condone piracy because they want to reach a large audience (even though that screws their partners, i.e. publisher and retailers).

It is a moral dilemma. You want to play the game (and the dev might want you to play it too) but you can't. Current right holders could do an affordable rerelease but they don't because it doesn't give them much of a benefit. That sucks, but obviously seeking a legitimate way of playing the game is the more ethical one.

This is where your problem is. No game is likely NEVER re-released. So say you pirate the Battletoads ROM and emulate it, play the crap out of it. Next month it gets a surprise release on the Nintendo Virtual Console or some Classic Rare Collection or something. You aren't going to buy that, because you just played the crap outta the game already, you are no longer in a Battletoads mood. So the company lost out on your money because you pirated the game.

Welcome to the world of abandonware. There are many more cases than you think.
Many games that were considered abandonware are now on GOG, aren't they?
 
I'm not gonna lie , I downloaded the ISO for Shining Force 3 on Saturn. There is just no way for me to afford the prices eBay commands which is between $250-$300. If Sega gave this game a barebones rerelease on a current gen console I would buy it no questions asked.

I think thats fair as long as you bought another SEGA game to indirectly compensate them for their game, that would have cost roughly the same as an HD port of SF3 (that you weren't planning to buy in the first place).

That way, the publisher gets some money instead of no money.
 
Yakuza 2 is going for like 80 dollars on ebay, and Sega will not release the HD collection in the US...i dont know a single character of japanese...I would be inclined to emulate something like that
 

beril

Member
If I have something and you want it, why the hell wouldn't you be entitled to just take it? Oh, right, because people just thinking they deserve something doesn't have any bearing on whether they have a true moral claim to it.

The basis of copyright is explicitly an exchange. By default -- and in reality -- creators have no control whatsoever of their work; as soon as they invent something, someone else can copy it, remix it, or otherwise act to modify and distribute it (as, indeed, human beings have done with artistic works throughout recorded history.) Copyright is a bargain struck by the state where it agrees to use its power -- essentially, the threat of legitimate force -- to give creators a temporary benefit they otherwise could not enjoy (limited exclusivity), in exchange for them creating more works and eventually giving those works explicitly to the public domain. More recent copyright law has perverted this arrangement, not because of any actual underlying moral principle, but purely out of a selfish desire by rich copyright-holders to maintain their exclusivity. As long as it's the law there's a degree to which people have to be behaviorally bound by it, but I see no reason whatsoever to grant it any moral legitimacy.

I do see it as a moral issue, regardless of any laws, not to rip of someone elses work or take for free what someone has invested millions in creating.

And what you say about pretty much applies to any form of ownership. Yes the laws protect you from someone stealing it (not that copyright infringement and piracy is the same as theft). If I create something I own the rights to it, and no other ownership comes with a strict legal expiration date, so the creative industry was getting screwed over by the earlier short copyrights.

It's appalling for a creator of artistic works to take this kind of "fuck you, I've got mine" attitude. As long as you can make sure people are punished for doing stuff you don't like, who cares how much culture and society are bankrupted by the artificial extension of copyright? Jesus.

I just don't think Public domain is really that big of a deal anymore. Right now nearly everything is still copyrighted, the amount of modern works completely dwarf the preserved earlier works, and it seems to work fine, and it's not very hard to find a cheap way to enjoy old media that's still copyrighted. And I don't think it wouldn't make that much of a difference if a few cent's went to a copyright owner when you bought a Jane Austen and Charles Dickens novel, whether you agree with the principle or not.
 
As long as it doesn't support outrageous pricing. I rent Earthbound multiple times as a kid, but as an adult before it was on the Wii U I absolutely pirated it. Bought it when it came out again but I wasn't spending $200 on it. Same with rarer titles on hard to get consoles like Panzer Dragoon Saga and Snatcher.

So I don't have a moral/ethical issue with it, as long as it isn't currently available to purchase as to where money would go to the people who made it; or if you already own it.
 

Durante

Member
And what you say about pretty much applies to any form of ownership. Yes the laws protect you from someone stealing it (not that copyright infringement and piracy is the same as theft). If I create something I own the rights to it, and no other ownership comes with a strict legal expiration date, so the creative industry was getting screwed over by the earlier short copyrights.
I find it confusing how you can make an argument that relies solely on equating copyright with physical ownership, while at the same time apparently recognizing that they are entirely different.
 

beril

Member
I find it confusing how you can make an argument that relies solely on equating copyright with physical ownership, while at the same time apparently recognizing that they are entirely different.

Copyright ownership is pretty much the same as any other form of ownership, I'm just pointing out that I'm not claiming that piracy/infringement is theft, even if I sometimes casually use the word stealing. Theft in this scenario would be forging a legal document of a copyright transfer and claiming all the royalties or something like that.
 
How come, if the price to buy a copy is too high, one of the options is to not play the game. You don't own it. You can't afford it. Then just play something else.

The fact that so many people seem to feel like they are entitled to play every single game they want is a problem.

The issue isn't the price, but availability.

If the studio themselves isn't printing any more copies and the game isn't available on digital storefronts, then I see no reason why paying a collector for a secondhand copy is any better than just playing the ROM. The studio isn't going to make a cent in either scenario anyway--there's literally no option in such a scenario to pay them for the game.

If the game is available where you live but expensive, or importing it because it hasn't been localized is an option, then I agree that price alone is a weak excuse.
 
If real copies have become prohibitively expensive and the current rights owner has no intent to release the title for sale or remake it i have no problem with someone emulating a game to try it.

If you intend to play it regularly or finish the game I'd say it would be better to buy a used copy at the higher value and realize that that game will not quickly lose that value and can be resold for nearly what you paid or more in most cases.
 

BibiMaghoo

Member
The issue isn't the price, but availability.

If the studio themselves isn't printing any more copies and the game isn't available on digital storefronts, then I see no reason why paying a collector for a secondhand copy is any better than just playing the ROM. The studio isn't going to make a cent in either scenario anyway--there's literally no option in such a scenario to pay them for the game.

I can only assume those opposed to it are either collectors that have high value rarities and feel the price is damaged because people have a means to play them, or they are straight up scalpers, who want to sell every old game for as much as possible regardless of it's true worth.
 
Yakuza 2 is going for like 80 dollars on ebay, and Sega will not release the HD collection in the US...i dont know a single character of japanese...I would be inclined to emulate something like that

But buying that 80 dollar copy just means you have a game that is worth $80.

You can then sell that game to someone else and get close to your $80 value back or more.

Most games don't drop or increase in price dramatically in a short period of time.

You could get unlucky and sega announces the day after you buy it that the HD collection is coming to the west.

But how likely is that? Sega itself is barely holding on to existence and they're most interested in football sims and mobile games.
 
Top Bottom