Posted February 14, 2013
low rated
I'll reply to some contentions here.
First the museum bit. A museum is not a person that charges money in order to see a single painting. The people are paying for the guarding and preservation of the arts, not for profit.
About the Martin Luther King part: you just made my point all the more stronger. Isn't it outrageous that "I have a dream" is copyrighted? Shouldn't it be for everybody? Isn't it a part of every American's history?
Old games, as I see it are like art. When the artist makes his work public, he expects a period of revenue, and that's it. It is not right in my opinion to withhold art from the public for decades. If they want a modest fee for keeping the games up to date, I'll be all for it, but when most games here cost more than year old AAA games that are on sale, it just seems like madness to me. If you were an artist, wouldn't you like for people to be able to enjoy your work freely after it was published for enough time?
I just think the laws are horrible. I absolutely love old games, and I feel completely ripped off. I have to pay a lot of money to people who didn't have anything to do with making the games. It bugs me to no end.
More importantly, though, people who buy games on Good Old Games firmly believe that classic games are like classic movies or classic literature; . worthwhile to spend time with even decades after their initial releases and certainly worth buying for the very reasonable price of $5-10 each. If you happen to be of a different opinion, then this site is not for you and never will be. So I have either to agree and pay, or not agree and steal or not play at all.
I think they are worth the money, but it is just wrong. You may think a medicine is worth thousands of dollars to you, but it still doesn't make it right to charge that. I'm not supporting the people who developed the game by paying. I'm not even paying for any real maintenance. I'm paying to people who did not have anything to do with the game, and to people who made a deal with them and just added a Dosbox with a shortcut and a few wallpapers and such.
I want to play 10-20 year old games without paying outrageous sums or being a criminal. Is this too much to ask?
I'll be satisfied even if there were competition, but this is a monopoly.
"games for machines which are no longer available, the copy-protection controls may be bypassed for "archival purposes." He also added that games with copy-protection that require "dongles" that were damaged and could not be replaced were also allowed to circumvent the copy-protection systems. Dongles are hardware devices that users have to physically connect to their machine to authenticate a game and allow them to play it--they first came out in the '80s and have since fallen out of popular use. "
Also removes the ability download games which go back into distribution and were one of the main supporters of at its founding and brought in many supporters of buying games when they were redistributed I honestly would have never bought anything from GoG if it were not for them.
So in closing it is more important to preserve and keep alive the history and memory of these games than to let them fade into obscurity. But also support them if they go back on sale and you loved them. I won't be supporting them, I'd be supporting a monopoly on art. I would be all for preservation, but this is ripping off people because they can't get the games legally anywhere else.
First the museum bit. A museum is not a person that charges money in order to see a single painting. The people are paying for the guarding and preservation of the arts, not for profit.
About the Martin Luther King part: you just made my point all the more stronger. Isn't it outrageous that "I have a dream" is copyrighted? Shouldn't it be for everybody? Isn't it a part of every American's history?
Old games, as I see it are like art. When the artist makes his work public, he expects a period of revenue, and that's it. It is not right in my opinion to withhold art from the public for decades. If they want a modest fee for keeping the games up to date, I'll be all for it, but when most games here cost more than year old AAA games that are on sale, it just seems like madness to me. If you were an artist, wouldn't you like for people to be able to enjoy your work freely after it was published for enough time?
I just think the laws are horrible. I absolutely love old games, and I feel completely ripped off. I have to pay a lot of money to people who didn't have anything to do with making the games. It bugs me to no end.
Ponchik: IIRC they did make it available for free. That doesn't matter either way for me. It is an old game. It had its time to sell. I don't think it is reasonable to charge $10 bucks for a 14 year old game. I think it is not about bringing old games to the public, or giving the developers more compensation for their hard work. In my opinion it is only a way to make an easy buck out of something they happened to get their hands on. It's no different than finding an old painting in the basement, and charging people to see it.
I would also appreciate (from a few certain people here) if you don't treat me like a criminal. I purchase every single game that I play. And even if I didn't, a holier than thou attitude doesn't in fact make you holy.
KEgstedt: No one just happened to find this game in a basement; and the developer studio involved spent a lot of time and effort on solving the extraordinarily difficult legal issues surrounding the rights to sell this game, and also made sure it works on modern operating systems without relying on unofficial fan-made patches. The man hours involved in these two projects alone are easily worth at least $10. I would also appreciate (from a few certain people here) if you don't treat me like a criminal. I purchase every single game that I play. And even if I didn't, a holier than thou attitude doesn't in fact make you holy.
More importantly, though, people who buy games on Good Old Games firmly believe that classic games are like classic movies or classic literature; . worthwhile to spend time with even decades after their initial releases and certainly worth buying for the very reasonable price of $5-10 each. If you happen to be of a different opinion, then this site is not for you and never will be.
I think they are worth the money, but it is just wrong. You may think a medicine is worth thousands of dollars to you, but it still doesn't make it right to charge that. I'm not supporting the people who developed the game by paying. I'm not even paying for any real maintenance. I'm paying to people who did not have anything to do with the game, and to people who made a deal with them and just added a Dosbox with a shortcut and a few wallpapers and such.
I want to play 10-20 year old games without paying outrageous sums or being a criminal. Is this too much to ask?
I'll be satisfied even if there were competition, but this is a monopoly.
cogadh: So-called "abandonware" is illegal distribution of copyright content. Of course it's free, it's software piracy. What GOG does is legally distribute games and for that, you have to pay a price.
private420: Abandonware is actually Legal and legit in America , any software not sold and or distributed for 8 or more years is fare game according the the library of congress. They are not covered by the DMCA ( Digital Millennium Copy-Right act ) it was ruled that "games for machines which are no longer available, the copy-protection controls may be bypassed for "archival purposes." He also added that games with copy-protection that require "dongles" that were damaged and could not be replaced were also allowed to circumvent the copy-protection systems. Dongles are hardware devices that users have to physically connect to their machine to authenticate a game and allow them to play it--they first came out in the '80s and have since fallen out of popular use. "
Also removes the ability download games which go back into distribution and were one of the main supporters of at its founding and brought in many supporters of buying games when they were redistributed I honestly would have never bought anything from GoG if it were not for them.
So in closing it is more important to preserve and keep alive the history and memory of these games than to let them fade into obscurity. But also support them if they go back on sale and you loved them.
Post edited February 14, 2013 by Ponchik