> The specific quote is that “there would be a significant risk that preserved video games would be used for recreational purposes.”
> This explains why people like Jim Ryan hate retro games. They think these older games would cannibalize sales from newer releases.
I play retro games. Mostly on Retroarch.
I play those games because I genuinely think they are better and more enjoyable than the vast majority of crap released nowadays.
If they managed (they can't) to wrestle my retro game collection from me, they wouldn't get me to play whatever crap EA, Ubisoft or Blizzard puts out nowadays. They would just get me to stop playing videogames.
I guess they would be okay with preservation if no one played retro games?
That was a rhetoric question, because I think they would only be happy if retro games became unavailable, so their profit grew a bit next quarter.
I don't even think retro games eat much of their profits, otherwise they would see it as a business opportunity, but their posture only makes sense if there's not much profit to be had in that niche.
The amazing part is that my cartridges still work perfectly well in my original consoles, decades later. There's no server, no login, no account, no downloading, no ads, no microtransactions... I just turn the console on, grab the controller, and I'm in game in seconds.
Indeed; I’m still enjoying games from 1994. They haven’t stopped being fun simply because they’re old. They also represent a significant learning effort over the years. One of the things that makes a game enjoyable is having learned how to play it well. I’m not likely to make that kind of investment in too many more games in my life. I haven’t got that kind of free time. So for me as well, it’s not old games versus new, it’s old games or nothing.
The linked GamesRadar article has way more substance than the Forbes article, which says a lot of nothing wrapped around one quote from the GamesRadar article.
> That ruling cites the belief of the Entertainment Software Association and other industry lobby groups that "there would be a significant risk that preserved video games would be used for recreational purposes." … this also ignores the fact that libraries already lend out digital versions of more traditional media like books and movies to everyday people for what can only be described as recreational purposes.
Exactly. What makes videogames different than books, music, and videos?
The terms under which libraries lend out e-content are awful: e-content expires after either a given number of lends, a period of time, or whichever comes sooner, while a well-maintained library book can last for decades, and it tends to be more expensive than its analog counterpart (eg: an e-book for may cost more than its heavy-duty library-style-binding hardcover).
That said, the key difference is that book publishers decided to offer e-content under an explicit license, while game publishers have not.
The context of the quote pretty significantly changes the meaning though. It's an argument for why the rules shouldn't be loosened for the preservation foundation.
> Still, the US copyright office has said no. "The Register concludes that proponents did not show that removing the single-user limitation for preserved computer programs or permitting off-premises access to video games are likely to be noninfringing," according to the final ruling. "She also notes the greater risk of market harm with removing the video game exemption’s premises limitation, given the market for legacy video games."
That quote (from the GamesRadar article) to me, makes it clear that the "[...] preserved video games would be used for recreational purposes" quote is being used as a gotcha. It's not that they don't want you to play old games, it's that they don't want copyright restrictions to be loosened. It's a very similar situation to the recent Internet Archive book. Current copyright law doesn't let you loan out format-shifted works. Copyright length is too long, but within the copyright framework, the restrictions seem sensible to me.
I think it fits this case. It's an open secret that despite constant public statements from games publishers about their old IP still having value that it's actually a scheme to push consumers on the new content treadmill. Now we have someone confirming in court that it's exactly that.
Which is a terrible misuse of copyright that goes against even its most publisher-friendly interpretation.
Meta: I don't think the phrase is actually overused, I think it's used so much due to so many companies all discovering at once that they don't have to spend time crafting a plausible cover narrative, and that nothing will happen if they just say they're being shitty and there's nothing you can do about it.
It's funny how they keep actively pushing normal people towards, rather than away from, piracy (or copyright infringement).
From a certain angle it could be seen that they're backing people into a corner from which the only escape is piracy, and once the convenience of that apple has been tasted, it's difficult to go back to the sub-standard service provision and heavy usage restrictions of the 'legitimate' world.
The next step will be to bombard indie game developers making modern “retro” style games with patent infringement for the most trivial and basic game concepts, so that no one could ever hope to truly make a game.
> That ruling cites the belief of the Entertainment Software Association and other industry lobby groups that "there would be a significant risk that preserved video games would be used for recreational purposes."
I have an RPi which has over 10k games from my youth. I play those games, some arcade, some from early consoles when I want to play those games. Just like sometimes you want to listen to music from when you were a teen.
I also have many consoles and games which I will hook up to my TV when I want to play those games - SSX Tricky anyone?
I have a PC and a Steamdeck with almost 9k licenses to play games.
So what do the ESA want?
Kill off music older than x years?
KIll off games older than x years? (MAME would like a word there)
I just recently had a mini obsession with SSX Tricky after ~20 years away.
I got it running using PCX2 with a few graphical tweaks including upscaling and widescreen, running it over sunshine/moonlight so I could play it via an Android box on the TV. It looked and felt like a modern game. Great work by the community to keep it up to date like that.
I'm not sure if I could have gotten it working with the actual PS2 and disc, whether those devices are still working and whether the TV could accept RCA cables as input.
> This explains why people like Jim Ryan hate retro games. They think these older games would cannibalize sales from newer releases.
I play retro games. Mostly on Retroarch.
I play those games because I genuinely think they are better and more enjoyable than the vast majority of crap released nowadays.
If they managed (they can't) to wrestle my retro game collection from me, they wouldn't get me to play whatever crap EA, Ubisoft or Blizzard puts out nowadays. They would just get me to stop playing videogames.
reply