Downloadable classic games = Big ripoff
- Thread starter Grave_Addiction
- Start date
[quote name='jkam']Yeah 16-bit is basically perfect now. One game that always bothered me though was Starfox (SNES). It runs faster than the original game. I know a lot of people will say its fine but play it on the PC and then on the SNES and you'll see the difference pretty easily. Almost everything else runs well though.
Having your PC hooked up to your TV probably makes it a little more authentic feeling. I always wanted to do something like that with a little shuttle box but never got around to it. Then again I would be putting some money out for the PC so cost goes both ways.
[/QUOTE]
Most HDTVs have a VGA-in on them... and if you have DVI or HDMI on your computer, then that's another option. It's as easy to hook your computer up to the TV as it is to hook up a standard console. And my God, it's worth it... if you're playing SNES games, using one of the blitters to smooth out the sprites makes old games literally look perfect.
Having your PC hooked up to your TV probably makes it a little more authentic feeling. I always wanted to do something like that with a little shuttle box but never got around to it. Then again I would be putting some money out for the PC so cost goes both ways.
[/QUOTE]
Most HDTVs have a VGA-in on them... and if you have DVI or HDMI on your computer, then that's another option. It's as easy to hook your computer up to the TV as it is to hook up a standard console. And my God, it's worth it... if you're playing SNES games, using one of the blitters to smooth out the sprites makes old games literally look perfect.
[quote name='daroga']Emulation's gray areas are quickly drying up--emulating the original Zelda without paying for it is now a cut-and-dry crime.[/QUOTE]
No, it's not.
It's a tort. Civil law, not criminal law.
And it's not theft. It's copyright infringement.
I am not a lawyer - real lawyers, feel free to clarify.
No, it's not.
It's a tort. Civil law, not criminal law.
And it's not theft. It's copyright infringement.
I am not a lawyer - real lawyers, feel free to clarify.
[quote name='Spades22']No one cares blah blah, no lawyer has a right to clarify this small matter anyway since they've commited more dishonourable crimes I'm sure haha, people downloading a few games shouldn't be criminal, especially games that aren't even produced anymore. Who gives a poop![/QUOTE]
I like that you used the word poop.
It sort of sums up your post.
I like that you used the word poop.
It sort of sums up your post.
[quote name='eldad9']No, it's not.
It's a tort. Civil law, not criminal law.
And it's not theft. It's copyright infringement.
I am not a lawyer - real lawyers, feel free to clarify.[/quote] You're not a lawyer? Wow! I wouldn't have been able to tell with all the wisdom literally gushing from you!
Piracy is theft, not copyright infrigment. Copyright infringment would be like using Mario's portly image to advertise your Pizza Place. Having ROMs is no different than breaking into a store and taking a game in the eyes of the law.
And it is a crime. Your use of crime in the sense of a criminal offense is accurate, but the broader and more promininent definition of "crime" is any offense against a rule or law.
It's a tort. Civil law, not criminal law.
And it's not theft. It's copyright infringement.
I am not a lawyer - real lawyers, feel free to clarify.[/quote] You're not a lawyer? Wow! I wouldn't have been able to tell with all the wisdom literally gushing from you!
Piracy is theft, not copyright infrigment. Copyright infringment would be like using Mario's portly image to advertise your Pizza Place. Having ROMs is no different than breaking into a store and taking a game in the eyes of the law.
And it is a crime. Your use of crime in the sense of a criminal offense is accurate, but the broader and more promininent definition of "crime" is any offense against a rule or law.
Spades22
CAGiversary!
Ya you made a nice summary there Strell, most lawyers and people who think d/l roms are criminal are poop. 
Umm and it is different. In Canada you can download stuff free, music I know for sure...but you can't steal a video game from a store...hmm no difference there right...
Umm and it is different. In Canada you can download stuff free, music I know for sure...but you can't steal a video game from a store...hmm no difference there right...
[quote name='Spades22']Umm and it is different. In Canada you can download stuff free, music I know for sure...but you can't steal a video game from a store...hmm no difference there right...[/quote]
My comments have been based off of laws in the United States. Other countries have more lax or more strict laws on their books.
Yet, despite the law as written in a given country, the priciple is the same. You're obtaining something that you did not pay for; you neither made it nor was it offered to you for free by the products manufacturer/designer/producer/publisher/etc. That is called stealing, my boy.
There's a lesson here on the slippery slope of post-modern thinking, but it's too late and this is the WAY wrong forum to get into it now.
My comments have been based off of laws in the United States. Other countries have more lax or more strict laws on their books.
Yet, despite the law as written in a given country, the priciple is the same. You're obtaining something that you did not pay for; you neither made it nor was it offered to you for free by the products manufacturer/designer/producer/publisher/etc. That is called stealing, my boy.
There's a lesson here on the slippery slope of post-modern thinking, but it's too late and this is the WAY wrong forum to get into it now.
[quote name='daroga']You're not a lawyer? Wow! I wouldn't have been able to tell with all the wisdom literally gushing from you!
Piracy is theft, not copyright infrigment. Copyright infringment would be like using Mario's portly image to advertise your Pizza Place. Having ROMs is no different than breaking into a store and taking a game in the eyes of the law.
And it is a crime. Your use of crime in the sense of a criminal offense is accurate, but the broader and more promininent definition of "crime" is any offense against a rule or law.[/QUOTE]
While I'm not an lawyer, I have at least a general grasp of these issues.
Piracy literally refers to boarding a vessel, stealing it and its cargo, and killing/raping/enslaving those on board. How powerful the content industry must be to even you use that term to refer to infringement!
Copyright infringement, whether commercial or not, is copyright infringement and not theft. Yes, the example you gave is an example of infringement of the commercial kind; file sharing may, according to the circumstances, be an infringement of the second kind. Neither case is theft. Neither is a crime. Yes, there are people who call everything that's illegal a crime, but these people are wrong; we have different words for different things. They help tell those things apart.
You are hereby sentenced to "steal" and read a copy of Lawrence Lessig's Free Culture.
One quote from the book:
Piracy is theft, not copyright infrigment. Copyright infringment would be like using Mario's portly image to advertise your Pizza Place. Having ROMs is no different than breaking into a store and taking a game in the eyes of the law.
And it is a crime. Your use of crime in the sense of a criminal offense is accurate, but the broader and more promininent definition of "crime" is any offense against a rule or law.[/QUOTE]
While I'm not an lawyer, I have at least a general grasp of these issues.
Piracy literally refers to boarding a vessel, stealing it and its cargo, and killing/raping/enslaving those on board. How powerful the content industry must be to even you use that term to refer to infringement!
Copyright infringement, whether commercial or not, is copyright infringement and not theft. Yes, the example you gave is an example of infringement of the commercial kind; file sharing may, according to the circumstances, be an infringement of the second kind. Neither case is theft. Neither is a crime. Yes, there are people who call everything that's illegal a crime, but these people are wrong; we have different words for different things. They help tell those things apart.
You are hereby sentenced to "steal" and read a copy of Lawrence Lessig's Free Culture.
One quote from the book:
So when you're paying for American movies, you're supporting what you call "piracy". That is, commercial copyright infringement.
You're not familiar with words having 2 definitions are you?
As for your friend Lessig's book, that's all fine and good. I have a feeling I might agree with him, but we're not talking about what, ideologically we should or shouldn't be able to do with games (see my comments on Fair Use above), but what is right and wrong according to the law. See the subtitle of that book you cited, emphasis mine: "How big media uses technology AND THE LAW to lock down culture and control creativity."
And actually, that's not what this thread has about but others have forced it in this direction. The OP posted that the VC games are a bad deal compared to collections. Others felt it very cute and wise to chime in on how they could download games for FREE of the internet and play them on their computer, and THAT's why the VC games are a bad price.
It's one thing to say you don't care about that stealing or the law. It's another thing entirely to say it's not against the law, or not stealing unless you have an eyepatch on and make a few scurvy dogs walk the plank first. Arr!
Roms couldn't fit better in #2.
As for your friend Lessig's book, that's all fine and good. I have a feeling I might agree with him, but we're not talking about what, ideologically we should or shouldn't be able to do with games (see my comments on Fair Use above), but what is right and wrong according to the law. See the subtitle of that book you cited, emphasis mine: "How big media uses technology AND THE LAW to lock down culture and control creativity."
And actually, that's not what this thread has about but others have forced it in this direction. The OP posted that the VC games are a bad deal compared to collections. Others felt it very cute and wise to chime in on how they could download games for FREE of the internet and play them on their computer, and THAT's why the VC games are a bad price.
It's one thing to say you don't care about that stealing or the law. It's another thing entirely to say it's not against the law, or not stealing unless you have an eyepatch on and make a few scurvy dogs walk the plank first. Arr!
[quote name='jimbodan']Just emulate them[/quote]
QFT same with the XBLA every time I hear about a new old school game come out.."that was fun" like SF2 and blah I dl it play it 5 mins later im like yeah that was fun now I really dont need to waste 10$ on this game
QFT same with the XBLA every time I hear about a new old school game come out.."that was fun" like SF2 and blah I dl it play it 5 mins later im like yeah that was fun now I really dont need to waste 10$ on this game
[quote name='danked']QFT same with the XBLA every time I hear about a new old school game come out.."that was fun" like SF2 and blah I dl it play it 5 mins later im like yeah that was fun now I really dont need to waste 10$ on this game [/QUOTE]
XBLA are a totally different animal... they add achievements, online play, rankings, clean up the graphics a bit. Online play with rankings is the big draw for many of these games... it's not like they are just dumping them on XBL with no improvements, much like the Wii is doing.
[/QUOTE]XBLA are a totally different animal... they add achievements, online play, rankings, clean up the graphics a bit. Online play with rankings is the big draw for many of these games... it's not like they are just dumping them on XBL with no improvements, much like the Wii is doing.
[quote name='Roufuss']It's not like they are just dumping them on XBL with no improvements, much like the Wii is doing.[/QUOTE]
Now let's be fair. We have no idea if that is the case or not. I'm not holding out for stuff added to old games, but it's possible.
Now let's be fair. We have no idea if that is the case or not. I'm not holding out for stuff added to old games, but it's possible.
[quote name='daroga']You're not familiar with words having 2 definitions are you?
Roms couldn't fit better in #2.
As for your friend Lessig's book, that's all fine and good. I have a feeling I might agree with him, but we're not talking about what, ideologically we should or shouldn't be able to do with games (see my comments on Fair Use above), but what is right and wrong according to the law. See the subtitle of that book you cited, emphasis mine: "How big media uses technology AND THE LAW to lock down culture and control creativity."
And actually, that's not what this thread has about but others have forced it in this direction. The OP posted that the VC games are a bad deal compared to collections. Others felt it very cute and wise to chime in on how they could download games for FREE of the internet and play them on their computer, and THAT's why the VC games are a bad price.
It's one thing to say you don't care about that stealing or the law. It's another thing entirely to say it's not against the law, or not stealing unless you have an eyepatch on and make a few scurvy dogs walk the plank first. Arr![/QUOTE]
The words 'piracy' and 'pirate' originally had one definition, derived from the greek word for 'attack'; only in the last few decades did it magically gain a second meaning. Just like the word 'terrorist' may be used today to indicate one not loyal to the current administration. But I digress.
Whatever you think about infringement, it's not theft, so please stop referring to it and such.
And the main issue is this: knowing how the law is made, sponsored by big media (and other commercial interests) with absolute disregard for individuals, do you still feel it deserves your utmost respect?
Copyright is essentially a compromise between content holders and the public at large. When it was extended from 50 to 70 to 95 years didn't you feel - shouldn't you have felt, if you'd known about it - that something that used to be yours was 'stolen' from you with no compensation? Shouldn't you have, if you'd known about it?
Roms couldn't fit better in #2.
As for your friend Lessig's book, that's all fine and good. I have a feeling I might agree with him, but we're not talking about what, ideologically we should or shouldn't be able to do with games (see my comments on Fair Use above), but what is right and wrong according to the law. See the subtitle of that book you cited, emphasis mine: "How big media uses technology AND THE LAW to lock down culture and control creativity."
And actually, that's not what this thread has about but others have forced it in this direction. The OP posted that the VC games are a bad deal compared to collections. Others felt it very cute and wise to chime in on how they could download games for FREE of the internet and play them on their computer, and THAT's why the VC games are a bad price.
It's one thing to say you don't care about that stealing or the law. It's another thing entirely to say it's not against the law, or not stealing unless you have an eyepatch on and make a few scurvy dogs walk the plank first. Arr![/QUOTE]
The words 'piracy' and 'pirate' originally had one definition, derived from the greek word for 'attack'; only in the last few decades did it magically gain a second meaning. Just like the word 'terrorist' may be used today to indicate one not loyal to the current administration. But I digress.
Whatever you think about infringement, it's not theft, so please stop referring to it and such.
And the main issue is this: knowing how the law is made, sponsored by big media (and other commercial interests) with absolute disregard for individuals, do you still feel it deserves your utmost respect?
Copyright is essentially a compromise between content holders and the public at large. When it was extended from 50 to 70 to 95 years didn't you feel - shouldn't you have felt, if you'd known about it - that something that used to be yours was 'stolen' from you with no compensation? Shouldn't you have, if you'd known about it?
Its funny, I read through the entire post and the one thing I was expecting, was never said.
Nintendo is copying a successful service, some of you may know it, it is called Itunes. Here we have a closed system that allows of micro transactions to occur, at an inflated price, for an altered product.
The model works too.
Who is the product marketed towards?
People that have basic knowledge and just want things to work. Any true Audiophile, won't buy a track from Itunes for many reasons (lesser quality, lacking packaging, closed system, expensive, etc.), but that person is the minority in the market. Itunes has sold over 1.5 billion songs
People that want the convenience of ordering from their couch. People could pick up the compilation (assuming they own a PSP or PS2), heck for 20 buck they could probably finding a working Genesis and some of those games. But that is not what the consumer is looking for, if they wanted the best bang for their buck, Itunes would not have sold 45 million videos at half the quality of an equally priced DVD.
These and other types of consumers (the impulse buyer, etc) are the majority of the market. They are who Nintendo is trying to focus on, that was the whole point of the Wii marketing campaign, to bring gaming back to the masses.
Nintendo is not creating a new market, they are just applying the model to the video game market.
Nintendo is copying a successful service, some of you may know it, it is called Itunes. Here we have a closed system that allows of micro transactions to occur, at an inflated price, for an altered product.
The model works too.
Who is the product marketed towards?
People that have basic knowledge and just want things to work. Any true Audiophile, won't buy a track from Itunes for many reasons (lesser quality, lacking packaging, closed system, expensive, etc.), but that person is the minority in the market. Itunes has sold over 1.5 billion songs
People that want the convenience of ordering from their couch. People could pick up the compilation (assuming they own a PSP or PS2), heck for 20 buck they could probably finding a working Genesis and some of those games. But that is not what the consumer is looking for, if they wanted the best bang for their buck, Itunes would not have sold 45 million videos at half the quality of an equally priced DVD.
These and other types of consumers (the impulse buyer, etc) are the majority of the market. They are who Nintendo is trying to focus on, that was the whole point of the Wii marketing campaign, to bring gaming back to the masses.
Nintendo is not creating a new market, they are just applying the model to the video game market.
[quote name='eldad9']The words 'piracy' and 'pirate' originally had one definition, derived from the greek word for 'attack'; only in the last few decades did it magically gain a second meaning. Just like the word 'terrorist' may be used today to indicate one not loyal to the current administration. But I digress.
Whatever you think about infringement, it's not theft, so please stop referring to it and such.
And the main issue is this: knowing how the law is made, sponsored by big media (and other commercial interests) with absolute disregard for individuals, do you still feel it deserves your utmost respect?
Copyright is essentially a compromise between content holders and the public at large. When it was extended from 50 to 70 to 95 years didn't you feel - shouldn't you have felt, if you'd known about it - that something that used to be yours was 'stolen' from you with no compensation? Shouldn't you have, if you'd known about it?[/quote] I really, really, don't think you want to start an etymology debate with me, sir. Especially since you've proven yourself to be limited to an antiquated definition of a word and aren't allowing for the modern use of it. For that matter, the use of the word as taking someone else's work without permission dates back to the early 1700s.
The "IT'S NOT FAIR!!" salve that you're using on your conscience to convince yourself that it's ok to steal might get you through Ethics 101 or make your Kazaa parties with your friends a lot easier to stomach, but it won't hold up in a court of law. Whether or not I think its fair or worthy of respect is inconsequential. Working through representatives or myself getting into politics would be the only way I could change it--until which time I'd have to abide by it.
I'd like you to conduct a test this week. Go to a local store, grab an arm full of games, dvds, and cds, and walk out the door. When the guard yells "STOP THIEF!" simply tell him that you are not a thief, but a copyright infringer.
Having a rom of a game that you in no way, shape, or form own is the same as walking into a store and taking that game on a disc. It's stealing intellectual property, whether electronically or through physical media. Of course, copyright infringement is likely just part of the above mentioned salve, so you're not likely to try to understand this, but that's ok. Some day it will be explained to you.
[quote name='dwhelan']Nintendo is not creating a new market, they are just applying the model to the video game market.[/quote]
Very true. And I think iTunes stumbled on the golden price right from the getgo. People were more than willing to buy songs for $1 and CDs for $10.
Nintendo's looking at the XBLA and guessing on the high end for their VC prices. If no ones buying them they'll either lower the price of a point to something under a penny, or they'll bring the pointcost of games down to an acceptable level.
Whatever you think about infringement, it's not theft, so please stop referring to it and such.
And the main issue is this: knowing how the law is made, sponsored by big media (and other commercial interests) with absolute disregard for individuals, do you still feel it deserves your utmost respect?
Copyright is essentially a compromise between content holders and the public at large. When it was extended from 50 to 70 to 95 years didn't you feel - shouldn't you have felt, if you'd known about it - that something that used to be yours was 'stolen' from you with no compensation? Shouldn't you have, if you'd known about it?[/quote] I really, really, don't think you want to start an etymology debate with me, sir. Especially since you've proven yourself to be limited to an antiquated definition of a word and aren't allowing for the modern use of it. For that matter, the use of the word as taking someone else's work without permission dates back to the early 1700s.
The "IT'S NOT FAIR!!" salve that you're using on your conscience to convince yourself that it's ok to steal might get you through Ethics 101 or make your Kazaa parties with your friends a lot easier to stomach, but it won't hold up in a court of law. Whether or not I think its fair or worthy of respect is inconsequential. Working through representatives or myself getting into politics would be the only way I could change it--until which time I'd have to abide by it.
I'd like you to conduct a test this week. Go to a local store, grab an arm full of games, dvds, and cds, and walk out the door. When the guard yells "STOP THIEF!" simply tell him that you are not a thief, but a copyright infringer.
Having a rom of a game that you in no way, shape, or form own is the same as walking into a store and taking that game on a disc. It's stealing intellectual property, whether electronically or through physical media. Of course, copyright infringement is likely just part of the above mentioned salve, so you're not likely to try to understand this, but that's ok. Some day it will be explained to you.
[quote name='dwhelan']Nintendo is not creating a new market, they are just applying the model to the video game market.[/quote]
Very true. And I think iTunes stumbled on the golden price right from the getgo. People were more than willing to buy songs for $1 and CDs for $10.
Nintendo's looking at the XBLA and guessing on the high end for their VC prices. If no ones buying them they'll either lower the price of a point to something under a penny, or they'll bring the pointcost of games down to an acceptable level.
blandstalker
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 21 (100%)
[quote name='daroga']
Piracy is theft, not copyright infrigment. Copyright infringment would be like using Mario's portly image to advertise your Pizza Place. Having ROMs is no different than breaking into a store and taking a game in the eyes of the law.[/quote]
Having ROMs is only a crime if you don't own the original.
Having illegal ROMs is also very different from breaking into a store and taking a game. You can make a strong case that having a ROM for a game you don't own is theft, but that is very different from breaking and entering.
Furthermore, the legal case history seems to disagree with you. The RIAA successfully sued people who downloaded music they didn't own under copyright infringement, not theft.
You might be able to argue intellectually that it is theft, or perhaps it was more legally advantageous for the RIAA to sue under copyright infringement. But we are talking law here.
Piracy is theft, not copyright infrigment. Copyright infringment would be like using Mario's portly image to advertise your Pizza Place. Having ROMs is no different than breaking into a store and taking a game in the eyes of the law.[/quote]
Having ROMs is only a crime if you don't own the original.
Having illegal ROMs is also very different from breaking into a store and taking a game. You can make a strong case that having a ROM for a game you don't own is theft, but that is very different from breaking and entering.
Furthermore, the legal case history seems to disagree with you. The RIAA successfully sued people who downloaded music they didn't own under copyright infringement, not theft.
You might be able to argue intellectually that it is theft, or perhaps it was more legally advantageous for the RIAA to sue under copyright infringement. But we are talking law here.
[quote name='eldad9']Whatever you think about infringement, it's not theft, so please stop referring to it and such. [/QUOTE]
Theft
–noun
1. the act of stealing; the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another; larceny.
While you may not agree on the definition of piracy, theft has had the same definition for a while.
The law is the law until it is changed, if you want to change it, work towards that goal. But you do not have any more right to ignore the law, then a crazed gunman.
Theft
–noun
1. the act of stealing; the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another; larceny.
While you may not agree on the definition of piracy, theft has had the same definition for a while.
The law is the law until it is changed, if you want to change it, work towards that goal. But you do not have any more right to ignore the law, then a crazed gunman.
[quote name='eldad9']While I'm not an lawyer, I have at least a general grasp of these issues.
Piracy literally refers to boarding a vessel, stealing it and its cargo, and killing/raping/enslaving those on board. How powerful the content industry must be to even you use that term to refer to infringement!
Copyright infringement, whether commercial or not, is copyright infringement and not theft. Yes, the example you gave is an example of infringement of the commercial kind; file sharing may, according to the circumstances, be an infringement of the second kind. Neither case is theft. Neither is a crime. Yes, there are people who call everything that's illegal a crime, but these people are wrong; we have different words for different things. They help tell those things apart.
You are hereby sentenced to "steal" and read a copy of Lawrence Lessig's Free Culture.
One quote from the book:
So when you're paying for American movies, you're supporting what you call "piracy". That is, commercial copyright infringement.[/QUOTE]
Ah, quoting Lessig. The last refuge of scoundrels. The sooner people realize Lessig is utterly, completely full of bullshit, the sooner the conversation can take a rational turn. I am not impressed by his giving away of his own works. These do far more for him in terms of publicity since his primary income is from speaking fees.
The fact is, piracy as a term for persons misappropriating copyrighted material has been in use since the early 70s. The origin is unclear. It may have something to do with the Disney vs. the Air Pirates case but other references sugest it predates that. The earliest likely cases were small radio stations rebroadcasting material from the big networks without permission but collecting revenue from local advertisers. That problem sprang up about five minute after magnetic tape recorders became widely available in the 1930s.
The creation of the FCC and the regulation of the broadcast airwaves likely played a role as well since the term 'pirate radio station' has been noted as far back as the 40s.
If a term that has been in common use decades longer than you've existed cannot be taken as understood, you're going to have to rethink large portions fo your working vocabulary.
Piracy literally refers to boarding a vessel, stealing it and its cargo, and killing/raping/enslaving those on board. How powerful the content industry must be to even you use that term to refer to infringement!
Copyright infringement, whether commercial or not, is copyright infringement and not theft. Yes, the example you gave is an example of infringement of the commercial kind; file sharing may, according to the circumstances, be an infringement of the second kind. Neither case is theft. Neither is a crime. Yes, there are people who call everything that's illegal a crime, but these people are wrong; we have different words for different things. They help tell those things apart.
You are hereby sentenced to "steal" and read a copy of Lawrence Lessig's Free Culture.
One quote from the book:
So when you're paying for American movies, you're supporting what you call "piracy". That is, commercial copyright infringement.[/QUOTE]
Ah, quoting Lessig. The last refuge of scoundrels. The sooner people realize Lessig is utterly, completely full of bullshit, the sooner the conversation can take a rational turn. I am not impressed by his giving away of his own works. These do far more for him in terms of publicity since his primary income is from speaking fees.
The fact is, piracy as a term for persons misappropriating copyrighted material has been in use since the early 70s. The origin is unclear. It may have something to do with the Disney vs. the Air Pirates case but other references sugest it predates that. The earliest likely cases were small radio stations rebroadcasting material from the big networks without permission but collecting revenue from local advertisers. That problem sprang up about five minute after magnetic tape recorders became widely available in the 1930s.
The creation of the FCC and the regulation of the broadcast airwaves likely played a role as well since the term 'pirate radio station' has been noted as far back as the 40s.
If a term that has been in common use decades longer than you've existed cannot be taken as understood, you're going to have to rethink large portions fo your working vocabulary.
Ugh. Creative Commons has it's uses, for example, I release my Wikipedia entries to CC because their purpose is for everyone to use.
I don't release my films under CC. Because it's my production and I have the rights to sell/distribute it. While I'm sure the arguement that we should all give away our media works well in a socialist/Marxist state, it doesn't in a capitalist state where us filmmakers have to make money.
I don't release my films under CC. Because it's my production and I have the rights to sell/distribute it. While I'm sure the arguement that we should all give away our media works well in a socialist/Marxist state, it doesn't in a capitalist state where us filmmakers have to make money.
After further thought, many people here (myself as a primary example) have done a horrible disservice to the OP and his intent. I would ask that any further posts be in regard to the value of downloadable games vs. collections, and that if people have a desire to continue this tangent argument, it be taken to the VS. forum.
[quote name='eldad9']The words 'piracy' and 'pirate' originally had one definition, derived from the greek word for 'attack'; only in the last few decades did it magically gain a second meaning. Just like the word 'terrorist' may be used today to indicate one not loyal to the current administration. But I digress.
Whatever you think about infringement, it's not theft, so please stop referring to it and such.
And the main issue is this: knowing how the law is made, sponsored by big media (and other commercial interests) with absolute disregard for individuals, do you still feel it deserves your utmost respect?
Copyright is essentially a compromise between content holders and the public at large. When it was extended from 50 to 70 to 95 years didn't you feel - shouldn't you have felt, if you'd known about it - that something that used to be yours was 'stolen' from you with no compensation? Shouldn't you have, if you'd known about it?[/QUOTE]
No, not at all. How can I perceive something that was never mine as having been stolen?
There are some truly bizarre arguments claiming that something that was expressly created as a commerical product should someday be donated tot he public because it reached enough mindshare to have cultural influence. What utter codswallop. If it was successfully influential as a commercial product, why should it not continue doing so if it maintains that status?
Much of these argument stemmed from concerns over items such as old movies being allowed to pass from existence. If they lacked enough commercial value the owners wouldn't be bothered to preserve the existing prints and ocasionally produce new prints. Thus some movies and much of TV is completely lost to history. (Never mind the fact that the lack of interest means few will miss them.)
This changed completely in the last 15 years thanks to the rise of digital technology. Storage and replication ahs become vastly easier, less costly, and less real estate intensive. (A single print of a 35mm feature film takes up a lot of volume compared to modern methods.) Distribution is also far simpler. The low cost of DVD production means that works that were once unavailable due to low demand are now cost effective to have as active catalogue items.
Digital distributuions only improves that situation. A film library owner need no longer have a warehouse full of DVDs to fill orders, just a server array that produces the file on demand. Given these conditions, a copyright holder is far more likely to make his product available and seek a price point that best compromises between profit and the level of consumer interest.
I, for one, could not care less if Disney still held the copyright to Mickey Mouse and related works 500 years from now. This has been a commercial product throughout my 42 years and I would not perceive any great gain from having it in the public domain. It is of greater benefit that a profit deriving entity be motivated to keep the product available in a desirable form rather than leave it up to the whims of volunteers.
If people are genuinely concerned about works dropping availability, they should instead concern themselves with the laws regrding the public domain rather than try to wrest the product from a copyright holder that actively markets the product.
I have an acquaintance who is a very successful novelist. If he died tomorrow the set of existing works from him would likely produce millions of dollars in revenue for many years to come. If these books continued to be popular 100 years from now, I would have no problem at all with one of his designated heirs (this could just as easily be a descendent or a publishing house) reaping a substantial income from those sale, on one condition: that the heir in question actively maintains the availability and marketing of the works. If the legal recipient of those copyrights does not feel it is worth their effort to maintain the works, then they should be handed over into into the public domain with a published statement of such so as to make the situation clear to all who may have an interest.
This works equally well for video games. If the owner of a game doesn't find it worth the effort to make the game available for any currently marketed platform for a period greater than five years, they may not care if this means forfeiting ownership of the copyright. In the next few years, digital distribution should grow to the point where virtually any game ever published of any merit will be available. The costs of keeping games in circulation will be so low as to make only the most wretched ones so unworthy as to fall into the public domain.
Part of this will be declining prices. If the cost per sale is ten cents and a million people would $1.10 for the game, it make much more sense to charge that than $2.10 if the number of willing buyers at that price is much below 500,000. Volume sales are a powerful thing and nobody in the console business is unaware of that.
Whatever you think about infringement, it's not theft, so please stop referring to it and such.
And the main issue is this: knowing how the law is made, sponsored by big media (and other commercial interests) with absolute disregard for individuals, do you still feel it deserves your utmost respect?
Copyright is essentially a compromise between content holders and the public at large. When it was extended from 50 to 70 to 95 years didn't you feel - shouldn't you have felt, if you'd known about it - that something that used to be yours was 'stolen' from you with no compensation? Shouldn't you have, if you'd known about it?[/QUOTE]
No, not at all. How can I perceive something that was never mine as having been stolen?
There are some truly bizarre arguments claiming that something that was expressly created as a commerical product should someday be donated tot he public because it reached enough mindshare to have cultural influence. What utter codswallop. If it was successfully influential as a commercial product, why should it not continue doing so if it maintains that status?
Much of these argument stemmed from concerns over items such as old movies being allowed to pass from existence. If they lacked enough commercial value the owners wouldn't be bothered to preserve the existing prints and ocasionally produce new prints. Thus some movies and much of TV is completely lost to history. (Never mind the fact that the lack of interest means few will miss them.)
This changed completely in the last 15 years thanks to the rise of digital technology. Storage and replication ahs become vastly easier, less costly, and less real estate intensive. (A single print of a 35mm feature film takes up a lot of volume compared to modern methods.) Distribution is also far simpler. The low cost of DVD production means that works that were once unavailable due to low demand are now cost effective to have as active catalogue items.
Digital distributuions only improves that situation. A film library owner need no longer have a warehouse full of DVDs to fill orders, just a server array that produces the file on demand. Given these conditions, a copyright holder is far more likely to make his product available and seek a price point that best compromises between profit and the level of consumer interest.
I, for one, could not care less if Disney still held the copyright to Mickey Mouse and related works 500 years from now. This has been a commercial product throughout my 42 years and I would not perceive any great gain from having it in the public domain. It is of greater benefit that a profit deriving entity be motivated to keep the product available in a desirable form rather than leave it up to the whims of volunteers.
If people are genuinely concerned about works dropping availability, they should instead concern themselves with the laws regrding the public domain rather than try to wrest the product from a copyright holder that actively markets the product.
I have an acquaintance who is a very successful novelist. If he died tomorrow the set of existing works from him would likely produce millions of dollars in revenue for many years to come. If these books continued to be popular 100 years from now, I would have no problem at all with one of his designated heirs (this could just as easily be a descendent or a publishing house) reaping a substantial income from those sale, on one condition: that the heir in question actively maintains the availability and marketing of the works. If the legal recipient of those copyrights does not feel it is worth their effort to maintain the works, then they should be handed over into into the public domain with a published statement of such so as to make the situation clear to all who may have an interest.
This works equally well for video games. If the owner of a game doesn't find it worth the effort to make the game available for any currently marketed platform for a period greater than five years, they may not care if this means forfeiting ownership of the copyright. In the next few years, digital distribution should grow to the point where virtually any game ever published of any merit will be available. The costs of keeping games in circulation will be so low as to make only the most wretched ones so unworthy as to fall into the public domain.
Part of this will be declining prices. If the cost per sale is ten cents and a million people would $1.10 for the game, it make much more sense to charge that than $2.10 if the number of willing buyers at that price is much below 500,000. Volume sales are a powerful thing and nobody in the console business is unaware of that.
[quote name='Grave_Addiction']So you're saying Nintendo built an entire virtual download network geared towards people who "have no clue" about video games? Think about that for a second and ask yourself if that seems like a very viable business model.
As of right now, those people are a fraction of the gaming populace and when you factor in those people have to actually be online, too, those numbers get even smaller.
If you look at some of the games available on the Virtual Console, it’s plain and clear these companies aren’t gearing their titles towards the uninformed gamers. How many of those gamers who you seem to think are the targeted audience ever played Gunstar Heroes or Ristar?[/QUOTE]
There ya go, using a subjective view to judge the whole market.
Actually, it's the opposite. The clueless are the great majority of the game market. The readership of all the gaming mags and web sites accounts for a small fraction of the active consumers of video games. Most people make their choice based solely on what they see on the store shelves and, soon, what they see on the virtual store shelves presented by their broadband connected console. Nintendo's entire existence hinges on an audience that doesn't devote a lot of thought to these issues. If just 25% of the market adopted CAG thinking it would send the industry into a cashflow crisis within a six months.
Who do you think is buying those tens of millions fo full price games every year? Answer: the people who make this a viable industry. They don't buy nearly as many games as we do but they generate far more net revenue per console. The entire CAG community, including those who don't know the site but practice the philosophy, could die tomorrow and it would cause much of a downturn for the industry. It would just make clearance sales last bit longer for the regular folks.
Why do you suppose casual gamers have become such a big focus for the industry? Because these are people for whom nearly all of the product is still new and shiny. These aren't people who are buying Sonic for the fifth time. This is perhaps the first time they've considered playing Sonic since they were kids and it was one of the less than a dozen games the family Genesis ever saw.
In the words of Dr. Frank N. Furter, "I didn't make him for you!" That is how nintendo regards the VC and CAGs. The only reason Nintendo should care about us going the volume route and buying the Genesis collection is that it currently doesn't have a version scheduled for a Nintendo platform. I'm sure they'd be perfectly happy for Sega to produce a GC/Wii and/or DS version.
As for Gunstar Heroes or Ristar, the pricing works great. If the consumer knows of these games but never owned them, the VC version can be far more convenient than any other venue for those titles. The original carts can command a price as high or higher, supposing the consumer has a Genesis to use.
Keep in mind, the whole proposition hinges on the consumer owning the Wii and viewing it as their primary platform. If the guy has a PS2 and sees fit to buy the Sega Collection, that works out fine for Sega. Nintendo loses out but Nintendo believes it has a good thing going with the simplicity and convenience of the VC and that this will appeal to to a highly profitable user base regardless of other venues for the game in question. As pointed out elsewhere, the Genesis Collection is only a better alternative if one already owns a PS2 or PSP. Nintendo is hoping to reach a lot of consumers who are disinclined to buy either of those machines by doing something new with the user interface. If those users buy just a handful of VC titles for nostalgia's sake, cha-ching!
As of right now, those people are a fraction of the gaming populace and when you factor in those people have to actually be online, too, those numbers get even smaller.
If you look at some of the games available on the Virtual Console, it’s plain and clear these companies aren’t gearing their titles towards the uninformed gamers. How many of those gamers who you seem to think are the targeted audience ever played Gunstar Heroes or Ristar?[/QUOTE]
There ya go, using a subjective view to judge the whole market.
Actually, it's the opposite. The clueless are the great majority of the game market. The readership of all the gaming mags and web sites accounts for a small fraction of the active consumers of video games. Most people make their choice based solely on what they see on the store shelves and, soon, what they see on the virtual store shelves presented by their broadband connected console. Nintendo's entire existence hinges on an audience that doesn't devote a lot of thought to these issues. If just 25% of the market adopted CAG thinking it would send the industry into a cashflow crisis within a six months.
Who do you think is buying those tens of millions fo full price games every year? Answer: the people who make this a viable industry. They don't buy nearly as many games as we do but they generate far more net revenue per console. The entire CAG community, including those who don't know the site but practice the philosophy, could die tomorrow and it would cause much of a downturn for the industry. It would just make clearance sales last bit longer for the regular folks.
Why do you suppose casual gamers have become such a big focus for the industry? Because these are people for whom nearly all of the product is still new and shiny. These aren't people who are buying Sonic for the fifth time. This is perhaps the first time they've considered playing Sonic since they were kids and it was one of the less than a dozen games the family Genesis ever saw.
In the words of Dr. Frank N. Furter, "I didn't make him for you!" That is how nintendo regards the VC and CAGs. The only reason Nintendo should care about us going the volume route and buying the Genesis collection is that it currently doesn't have a version scheduled for a Nintendo platform. I'm sure they'd be perfectly happy for Sega to produce a GC/Wii and/or DS version.
As for Gunstar Heroes or Ristar, the pricing works great. If the consumer knows of these games but never owned them, the VC version can be far more convenient than any other venue for those titles. The original carts can command a price as high or higher, supposing the consumer has a Genesis to use.
Keep in mind, the whole proposition hinges on the consumer owning the Wii and viewing it as their primary platform. If the guy has a PS2 and sees fit to buy the Sega Collection, that works out fine for Sega. Nintendo loses out but Nintendo believes it has a good thing going with the simplicity and convenience of the VC and that this will appeal to to a highly profitable user base regardless of other venues for the game in question. As pointed out elsewhere, the Genesis Collection is only a better alternative if one already owns a PS2 or PSP. Nintendo is hoping to reach a lot of consumers who are disinclined to buy either of those machines by doing something new with the user interface. If those users buy just a handful of VC titles for nostalgia's sake, cha-ching!
[quote name='Spades22']Umm to that eopbirs guy, I don't know what casual gamer would think that way. I used to buy games at full price for years being that casual gamer, and I always thought the way the OP stated. Ya that sure is a rip-off though...I didn't think it'd be 8 bucks for a sega genesis game. Oh and another thing, if I was a casual gamer I'd think it was absurd to pay 8 dollars for an old game. I'd be like "Hmm 3 sega genesis games or a NEW GEN players choice title" Pff not even a decision. Oh thats american dollars yet too, so thats like 10 dollars Canadian for a freaking sega genesis game! Thanks but I'll buy the PS2 collection or just create a rom collection >_>[/QUOTE]
Dude, you're reading and posting on this site. Think about what that says about you and your place in the market as a video game consumer. It plainly indicates a level of interest well beyond the casual.
If you think you're a casual gamer, you really need to reconsider your definitions.
Dude, you're reading and posting on this site. Think about what that says about you and your place in the market as a video game consumer. It plainly indicates a level of interest well beyond the casual.
If you think you're a casual gamer, you really need to reconsider your definitions.
Spades22
CAGiversary!
I said I used to... when I was like in grade 5 with no internet I was a casual gamer. I'd beg for one game and I was happy with one or two games a year and would play it over and over. I didn't even know what a playstation was a few years after it was released. Once I got the internet I enjoyed multi a lot more... and when you're older you can't really get into the characters as much, for me at least. Now I don't consider myself a casual gamer...I'm talking about back in the day when I WAS one. Even in juniour high I didnt use the net really...
Also, thing is, casual gamers DO NOT buy old console games then. EVERY Casual gamer I know likes their odd RPG, loves their sports, and some like their GTA and stuff. These are people who buy a game like once a year and never have visited any gaming website. Either way though, I'm saying when I was a casual gamer I still would not have spent 10 dollars on a sega game, that would have seemed rediculous to me.
Also, thing is, casual gamers DO NOT buy old console games then. EVERY Casual gamer I know likes their odd RPG, loves their sports, and some like their GTA and stuff. These are people who buy a game like once a year and never have visited any gaming website. Either way though, I'm saying when I was a casual gamer I still would not have spent 10 dollars on a sega game, that would have seemed rediculous to me.
[quote name='Spades22']Also, thing is, casual gamers DO NOT buy old console games then. EVERY Casual gamer I know likes their odd RPG, loves their sports, and some like their GTA and stuff. These are people who buy a game like once a year and never have visited any gaming website. Either way though, I'm saying when I was a casual gamer I still would not have spent 10 dollars on a sega game, that would have seemed rediculous to me.[/QUOTE]
I can tell you from when i worked at best buy, the casual gamer eats that stuff up. If not then you wouldnt see every single company coming out with their own classic compilations....sega,capcom,konami,namco etc. A ton of people would buy namco museum soley for pacman.
I can tell you from when i worked at best buy, the casual gamer eats that stuff up. If not then you wouldnt see every single company coming out with their own classic compilations....sega,capcom,konami,namco etc. A ton of people would buy namco museum soley for pacman.
[quote name='Grave_Addiction']What are you talking about?
I'm saying the target audience is the average gamer. Not the hardcore gamer, not the mother of three who just got into gaming, but the person who plays somewhat regularly and would be interested in classic games.
I don't see how you can argue that one classic game that is about half the price of a compilation could be more valuable to anyone who values money.
I think you guys put too much stock in us being CAGs. I believe most gamers could be considered "CAGs" but just haven't found the site.
I think if you went up to an average person and asked which would you rather do: Pay $8 for one of 10 classic games, or pay $20 for 28 classic games that have nearly all of the $8 games? I bet you nine out of 10 people say they'd rather pay a little bit extra to get the better value.
You see this same principle applied all the time at gas stations or fast food joints with fountain drinks. A person might not be really thirsty when they go into the store for a fountain drink, but when they look at their choices:
16 oz. drink for $1
24 oz. drink for 1.25
64 oz. drink for 1.50
Most people will choose the 64 oz. drink because they feel it's the better value for their money, even if they don't plan to drink all of it. The same principle can be applied to classic compilations.
Looking at the list of games on Sega Genesis Collection, I'm sure most gamers who have been around awhile can name several games they'd like to have. So why would anyone rather buy two Virtual Console games when they could buy those same two games on Sega Genesis Collection for about the same price, but get 26 more games, too?
You guys can talk all day about, "What about the guy who only wants to play that one very special game they always wanted to play?" Well ya know what, there most likely isn't a great deal of those people around.
The mass majority of gamers who are looking to play classic games would rather have more for their money. It's plain and simple.
And if, by some off-the-wall reason, Nintendo is targeting people who only like one classic game and would rather not mess with buying more than one or two games at any give time, then that's their fault because the VC will most definitely fail.[/QUOTE]
Yet they sell tons of smaller drinks at a higher price per once. People would complain bitterly if they eliminated the smaller sizes and just had the one big tanker at a buck.
You are assuming that all purchases should be coldly rational decisions when most are purely driven by desire and whim. For instance, many women won't order food in the quantity they really desire when eating in public. It isn't a matter of cost but instead how they believe other will view them if they knock back a big burger instead of a smaller one, regardless of whether they appear overweight or not.
Catering to those consumer desires is always preferable. I'm a great fan of game collections myself but I've had many occasions when I pointed out such a bargain to a stranger at a store and heard, "But I don't want all of those games." The very low cost for the few desired games in the collection didn't matter. The person saw it as other than what he wanted. Thus the collections cannot serve the whole potential market. If those persons are willing to pay a premium for getting exactly what they want, let them. So long as the collections (or bulk purchase discounts for online purchases) appear for the likes of us, I have no problem.
Of course, the example doesn't really hold up since 7-11 isn't selling you the drink. They pretty much give it away with the purchase of the cup. The stuff is so cheap that the difference between 16 oz. and a gallon is pennies. This is why it can make sense to buy the smaller size if you're eating at the location and they allow refills. I'd rather go back to the fountain a ew times than pay another buck for the big tanker. OTOH, if I'm taking the order to go, then I'll pay the premium for the big cup. What I'm buying is the convenience of getting it all at once in portable form.
Which brings me to a bargain some people don't know about. If you frequently buy soft drinks from plaes like 7-11, look into their price for filling a cooler you bring in. The cost per ounce is typically less than half for buying a cup. Some places require the cooler to be of their own brand with the store logo on it but 7-11 is pretty easygoing.
Around here, they'll let me fill my 52 oz. tanker for 89 cents. A lot cheaper than buying a new cup, especially for my beloved Slurpee. I've had my 7-11 tanker since 1999. It cost $3.50 and included a free fill-up with purchase, so over the years it has been a great savings.
But very few people carry around those tankers in their cars like I do. It's bulky, a bit tacky looking, and you have to take in frequently to wash it lest it attract bugs. so their is a certain cost for the savings. The great majority of people just buy a Big Gulp for a much greater cost per ounce and toss the cup in the trash when they're done.
So a regular consumer of Big Gulps is missing out on a great bargain from my point of view. From his point of view, he's buying what he wants, when he wants it, and nothing more. And no big red tanker in the car all the time.
Such is choice.
I'm saying the target audience is the average gamer. Not the hardcore gamer, not the mother of three who just got into gaming, but the person who plays somewhat regularly and would be interested in classic games.
I don't see how you can argue that one classic game that is about half the price of a compilation could be more valuable to anyone who values money.
I think you guys put too much stock in us being CAGs. I believe most gamers could be considered "CAGs" but just haven't found the site.
I think if you went up to an average person and asked which would you rather do: Pay $8 for one of 10 classic games, or pay $20 for 28 classic games that have nearly all of the $8 games? I bet you nine out of 10 people say they'd rather pay a little bit extra to get the better value.
You see this same principle applied all the time at gas stations or fast food joints with fountain drinks. A person might not be really thirsty when they go into the store for a fountain drink, but when they look at their choices:
16 oz. drink for $1
24 oz. drink for 1.25
64 oz. drink for 1.50
Most people will choose the 64 oz. drink because they feel it's the better value for their money, even if they don't plan to drink all of it. The same principle can be applied to classic compilations.
Looking at the list of games on Sega Genesis Collection, I'm sure most gamers who have been around awhile can name several games they'd like to have. So why would anyone rather buy two Virtual Console games when they could buy those same two games on Sega Genesis Collection for about the same price, but get 26 more games, too?
You guys can talk all day about, "What about the guy who only wants to play that one very special game they always wanted to play?" Well ya know what, there most likely isn't a great deal of those people around.
The mass majority of gamers who are looking to play classic games would rather have more for their money. It's plain and simple.
And if, by some off-the-wall reason, Nintendo is targeting people who only like one classic game and would rather not mess with buying more than one or two games at any give time, then that's their fault because the VC will most definitely fail.[/QUOTE]
Yet they sell tons of smaller drinks at a higher price per once. People would complain bitterly if they eliminated the smaller sizes and just had the one big tanker at a buck.
You are assuming that all purchases should be coldly rational decisions when most are purely driven by desire and whim. For instance, many women won't order food in the quantity they really desire when eating in public. It isn't a matter of cost but instead how they believe other will view them if they knock back a big burger instead of a smaller one, regardless of whether they appear overweight or not.
Catering to those consumer desires is always preferable. I'm a great fan of game collections myself but I've had many occasions when I pointed out such a bargain to a stranger at a store and heard, "But I don't want all of those games." The very low cost for the few desired games in the collection didn't matter. The person saw it as other than what he wanted. Thus the collections cannot serve the whole potential market. If those persons are willing to pay a premium for getting exactly what they want, let them. So long as the collections (or bulk purchase discounts for online purchases) appear for the likes of us, I have no problem.
Of course, the example doesn't really hold up since 7-11 isn't selling you the drink. They pretty much give it away with the purchase of the cup. The stuff is so cheap that the difference between 16 oz. and a gallon is pennies. This is why it can make sense to buy the smaller size if you're eating at the location and they allow refills. I'd rather go back to the fountain a ew times than pay another buck for the big tanker. OTOH, if I'm taking the order to go, then I'll pay the premium for the big cup. What I'm buying is the convenience of getting it all at once in portable form.
Which brings me to a bargain some people don't know about. If you frequently buy soft drinks from plaes like 7-11, look into their price for filling a cooler you bring in. The cost per ounce is typically less than half for buying a cup. Some places require the cooler to be of their own brand with the store logo on it but 7-11 is pretty easygoing.
Around here, they'll let me fill my 52 oz. tanker for 89 cents. A lot cheaper than buying a new cup, especially for my beloved Slurpee. I've had my 7-11 tanker since 1999. It cost $3.50 and included a free fill-up with purchase, so over the years it has been a great savings.
But very few people carry around those tankers in their cars like I do. It's bulky, a bit tacky looking, and you have to take in frequently to wash it lest it attract bugs. so their is a certain cost for the savings. The great majority of people just buy a Big Gulp for a much greater cost per ounce and toss the cup in the trash when they're done.
So a regular consumer of Big Gulps is missing out on a great bargain from my point of view. From his point of view, he's buying what he wants, when he wants it, and nothing more. And no big red tanker in the car all the time.
Such is choice.
[quote name='Spades22']I said I used to... when I was like in grade 5 with no internet I was a casual gamer. I'd beg for one game and I was happy with one or two games a year and would play it over and over. I didn't even know what a playstation was a few years after it was released. Once I got the internet I enjoyed multi a lot more... and when you're older you can't really get into the characters as much, for me at least. Now I don't consider myself a casual gamer...I'm talking about back in the day when I WAS one. Even in juniour high I didnt use the net really...
Also, thing is, casual gamers DO NOT buy old console games then. EVERY Casual gamer I know likes their odd RPG, loves their sports, and some like their GTA and stuff. These are people who buy a game like once a year and never have visited any gaming website. Either way though, I'm saying when I was a casual gamer I still would not have spent 10 dollars on a sega game, that would have seemed rediculous to me.[/QUOTE]
But you also identify being a casual gamer with also being a child with little or no disposable income of your own. You weren't so much a casual gamer as a gamer dependent on the indulgence of adults to fulfill your desires. The market Nintendo is seeking to reach are adults with credit cards and the affluence to indulge in a $10 purchase on nostalgic whim.
I would also dispute the idea that casual gamers will not buy older games. These purchase fall into two main categories. One group is buying something they remember from long ago. The second is buying something that while old to longtime players, is new to them.
Part of the beauty of a Nintendogs or Brain Age is the access those games have provided to non-traditional audiences. These games were reaching adults who hadn't played games in decades or ever. I know of two 20-something women who each bought a DS just for Nintendogs. They've since gone on to buy a fair amount of GBA games. Their tastes favor the older simpler games that originated on much older platforms. They may have been vaguely aware of Super Mario Bros. in the past but this is their first time putting money in Nintendo's coffers to play it. The $20 they paid for their GBA version doesn't seem at all unreasonable in return for the enjoyment gotten from the game. It doesn't matter at all to them that the game has existed for 20 years across a half dozen platforms. All that matters is that they can walk into the store and get it for the machine they already own without much thought at a seemingly reasonable price compared to what they regularly spend on other entertainments.
Casual gamers buy what appeals to them and manages to fall within their attention. It is the lack of calculation in their shopping that makes them likely to pay more while spending less overall on gaming. Those high margins are more favorable to the retailers and the publishers than those of us who buy dozens of games but only after they've dropped to a small fraction of their intended price.
Also, thing is, casual gamers DO NOT buy old console games then. EVERY Casual gamer I know likes their odd RPG, loves their sports, and some like their GTA and stuff. These are people who buy a game like once a year and never have visited any gaming website. Either way though, I'm saying when I was a casual gamer I still would not have spent 10 dollars on a sega game, that would have seemed rediculous to me.[/QUOTE]
But you also identify being a casual gamer with also being a child with little or no disposable income of your own. You weren't so much a casual gamer as a gamer dependent on the indulgence of adults to fulfill your desires. The market Nintendo is seeking to reach are adults with credit cards and the affluence to indulge in a $10 purchase on nostalgic whim.
I would also dispute the idea that casual gamers will not buy older games. These purchase fall into two main categories. One group is buying something they remember from long ago. The second is buying something that while old to longtime players, is new to them.
Part of the beauty of a Nintendogs or Brain Age is the access those games have provided to non-traditional audiences. These games were reaching adults who hadn't played games in decades or ever. I know of two 20-something women who each bought a DS just for Nintendogs. They've since gone on to buy a fair amount of GBA games. Their tastes favor the older simpler games that originated on much older platforms. They may have been vaguely aware of Super Mario Bros. in the past but this is their first time putting money in Nintendo's coffers to play it. The $20 they paid for their GBA version doesn't seem at all unreasonable in return for the enjoyment gotten from the game. It doesn't matter at all to them that the game has existed for 20 years across a half dozen platforms. All that matters is that they can walk into the store and get it for the machine they already own without much thought at a seemingly reasonable price compared to what they regularly spend on other entertainments.
Casual gamers buy what appeals to them and manages to fall within their attention. It is the lack of calculation in their shopping that makes them likely to pay more while spending less overall on gaming. Those high margins are more favorable to the retailers and the publishers than those of us who buy dozens of games but only after they've dropped to a small fraction of their intended price.
[quote name='daroga']I'd like you to conduct a test this week. Go to a local store, grab an arm full of games, dvds, and cds, and walk out the door. When the guard yells "STOP THIEF!" simply tell him that you are not a thief, but a copyright infringer.[/QUOTE]
See, now you're talking about theft, not copyright infringement.
If you take stuff from the store, the store has less stuff.
You could argue that in the results of certain types of copyright infringement are equivalent to the result of certain types of theft; that does not make the two acts identical. Especially since one is not criminal and the other is.
See, now you're talking about theft, not copyright infringement.
If you take stuff from the store, the store has less stuff.
You could argue that in the results of certain types of copyright infringement are equivalent to the result of certain types of theft; that does not make the two acts identical. Especially since one is not criminal and the other is.
[quote name='Spades22']Ya see thats all they're gunna get, adults with money. Not the casual gamer at all. Plus adult casual gamers are into sports titles, shooters, etc. Not an old sonic game.[/quote]
What games do you think adults played when they were growing up?
What games do you think adults played when they were growing up?
[quote name='eldad9']See, now you're talking about theft, not copyright infringement.
If you take stuff from the store, the store has less stuff.
You could argue that in the results of certain types of copyright infringement are equivalent to the result of certain types of theft; that does not make the two acts identical. Especially since one is not criminal and the other is.[/QUOTE]
My media theory professor would eat you for lunch.
You're suggesting that there is a difference between stealing a physical form (a DVD, a game disk, a reel, whatever) and downloading a movie/ROM/mp3 online. It came from somewhere. Someone is DISTRIBUTING content without rights to do so legally. You can be prosecuted for either. Walking out of a store is known as shoplifting, a form of theft; Downloading music illegally is known as copywright infringment
Theft = Theft = Theft = Theft
Wikipedia's page on Copyright Infringment
Both physical theft and copyright infringment are considered theft and are crimes in the United States.
If you take stuff from the store, the store has less stuff.
You could argue that in the results of certain types of copyright infringement are equivalent to the result of certain types of theft; that does not make the two acts identical. Especially since one is not criminal and the other is.[/QUOTE]
My media theory professor would eat you for lunch.
You're suggesting that there is a difference between stealing a physical form (a DVD, a game disk, a reel, whatever) and downloading a movie/ROM/mp3 online. It came from somewhere. Someone is DISTRIBUTING content without rights to do so legally. You can be prosecuted for either. Walking out of a store is known as shoplifting, a form of theft; Downloading music illegally is known as copywright infringment
Theft = Theft = Theft = Theft
Wikipedia's page on Copyright Infringment
Both physical theft and copyright infringment are considered theft and are crimes in the United States.
[quote name='Strell']epobirs is like a big bag of asskick wrapped in a generous layer of ownage.
There's probably sprinkles too. Sprinkles that spell your dewm.[/quote]
I just figured he traded in his arms for typing machines. Logical, verbose, accurate typing machines.
There's probably sprinkles too. Sprinkles that spell your dewm.[/quote]
I just figured he traded in his arms for typing machines. Logical, verbose, accurate typing machines.
Spades22
CAGiversary!
Thats the thing though. Adults who have played video games since they grew up are probably no longer casual gamers. If they've been that involved in video gaming they probably know an awful lot more about it...so they'll buy the collection. Kids and teens will not waste any money on VC games either if they're casual gamers, and those that aren't will go for the better collection deal. Where they will make there money is from the odd hardcore gamer who can't find the game anywhere else and is dying to play that one old game on a console.... but those are very few, so I think they'll get little sales from this. They will make some, and I'd do the same adding this option since I'm sure it costs them very little but time, but anyway I think there will be few sales and I think 10 bucks for a Sega Gen game is a rip-off, which is what this thread is supposed to be about. If you don't, then you're free to buy the VC game for all I care.
More like a layer of poop wrapped in tin foil in my opinion. Relating current Gen DS games to old time console games...uh no.
More like a layer of poop wrapped in tin foil in my opinion. Relating current Gen DS games to old time console games...uh no.
[quote name='Spades22']Thats the thing though. Adults who have played video games since they grew up are probably no longer casual gamers.[/quote]Not adults who have played video games SINCE they grew up, it's adults who played video games BEFORE and have not since. These are the people Nintendo hopes to add to the user base of the Wii, and target the VC towards.
[quote name='botticus']Not adults who have played video games SINCE they grew up, it's adults who played video games BEFORE and have not since. These are the people Nintendo hopes to add to the user base of the Wii, and target the VC towards.[/QUOTE]
Bingo. My friend has not owned a system since the NES. He wants to buy a Wii just to play NES, SNES games that he missed or loved.
Bingo. My friend has not owned a system since the NES. He wants to buy a Wii just to play NES, SNES games that he missed or loved.
[quote name='Spades22']And they hope to accomplish that by offering VC games? Why would they try to attract old gamers who played old games by offering them the same old games again? I think the Wiimote will do much more in this aspect than offering old VC games...[/quote]No. They attract the people to the console with the new games and controls. Unless you're gizmogc's friend. Then these people who own the console say "Wow, look, I can download some of these old games I used to play. Or some old games I always wanted to play. This is great! And only $5-$10!"
I guess I'm the only one looking forward to paying assloads of money for the VC games. I'm a big fan of "set-top" boxes. I like the idea that every Nintendo title and an entire library of MSX, Genesis, and TG-16 games can be available on one tiny console (which is why I would pay a premium for each separate title than bust out a PS2 and hook it up every time I wanted to play a Genesis game).
To me $8 is not alot for a SNES game and $10 is not alot for an N64 game. You guys are too used to things like Circuit City clearance sales where you can get 2 games for $10. I think CAG has made you guys jaded.
Is an unbelievable gaming experience like Mario 64 or Zelda: OoT not worth $10? Especially to someone who never experienced it? Remember, these classics went for $60 at their release. And just because a game is old doesn't mean it has to cost pennies.
To me $8 is not alot for a SNES game and $10 is not alot for an N64 game. You guys are too used to things like Circuit City clearance sales where you can get 2 games for $10. I think CAG has made you guys jaded.
Is an unbelievable gaming experience like Mario 64 or Zelda: OoT not worth $10? Especially to someone who never experienced it? Remember, these classics went for $60 at their release. And just because a game is old doesn't mean it has to cost pennies.
[quote name='Kendro']To me $8 is not alot for a SNES game and $10 is not alot for an N64 game. You guys are too used to things like Circuit City clearance sales where you can get 2 games for $10. I think CAG has made you guys jaded.[/QUOTE]
Real CAGs would find a way to get the points cheaper...
Real CAGs would find a way to get the points cheaper...
VanillaGorilla
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 18 (100%)
[quote name='gizmogc']Bingo. My friend has not owned a system since the NES. He wants to buy a Wii just to play NES, SNES games that he missed or loved.[/quote]Doesn't you friend know you can still buy NES and SNES systems, for a lot cheaper than $250? Is he not aware of emulation? To spend $270 (VC controller included) to play games from the late 80's and early 90's is pretty stupid.
[quote name='VanillaGorilla']Doesn't you friend know you can still buy NES and SNES systems, for a lot cheaper than $250? Is he not aware of emulation? To spend $270 (VC controller included) to play games from the late 80's and early 90's is pretty stupid.[/quote]No offense, but he'd likely say that buying a 20 year old game console that works occasionally or has to be ripped apart and have its connectors replace, buying 20 year old cartridges (that may need battery replacement), buying 20 year old controllers, etc. is pretty stupid.
People could just lug around a CD collection everywhere they go, but they pay a premium price to have everything on an iPod. Easy access, consolidated location, medium-sized hardware price tag. The Wii & its virtual console is no different.
People could just lug around a CD collection everywhere they go, but they pay a premium price to have everything on an iPod. Easy access, consolidated location, medium-sized hardware price tag. The Wii & its virtual console is no different.
Spades22
CAGiversary!
Ya but in order to buy those "5 dollar games" they have to spend 250 dollars on a console... I'd sooner buy a NES at a garage sale and get a crap load of games for 10 bucks. Whatever, I'm very careful with my money and am particular with what I buy. And to me, it's not worth it one bit. If I can get a new gen game for the same price, I'd much rather have that. Also, I'm spending money on something with absolutely no retail value and something that would completely disappear if my console broke down.
To me it's like spending money on ROMS, except you get to use a controller. Woop de do.
To me it's like spending money on ROMS, except you get to use a controller. Woop de do.
Spades22
CAGiversary!
Ya I know that... but I mean then I'm out 500 dollars just to play those games. I'm not saying that people aren't attracted at all by the option at least to download them, I like having the option there as well even if I don't use it right away, like anything else in life. It's just I think that overall it's a ripoff in terms of how much they're charging.
[quote name='Spades22']Ya but in order to buy those "5 dollar games" they have to spend 250 dollars on a console... I'd sooner buy a NES at a garage sale and get a crap load of games for 10 bucks. Whatever, I'm very careful with my money and am particular with what I buy. And to me, it's not worth it one bit. If I can get a new gen game for the same price, I'd much rather have that. Also, I'm spending money on something with absolutely no retail value and something that would completely disappear if my console broke down.
To me it's like spending money on ROMS, except you get to use a controller. Woop de do.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, my friend really wants to buy a 20 year old NES, deal with blinking issues, finding the games he wants to play and then hooking it up to his $3500 TV. Doubtful.
I personally cannot wait for the Wii. I already have a modded Xbox so I can play any NES, Genesis, SNES, TG16, etc game I want right now for FREE. When the VC launches, I'll be ready to drop $50 or so on some games.
To me it's like spending money on ROMS, except you get to use a controller. Woop de do.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, my friend really wants to buy a 20 year old NES, deal with blinking issues, finding the games he wants to play and then hooking it up to his $3500 TV. Doubtful.
I personally cannot wait for the Wii. I already have a modded Xbox so I can play any NES, Genesis, SNES, TG16, etc game I want right now for FREE. When the VC launches, I'll be ready to drop $50 or so on some games.
bread's done