Autists love to ruin good things in the name of following the rulez. They'll keep pestering about this until it brings more attention about piracy sites that we don't want.
even my actually on the spectrum very christian moralgay friend pirates old games. I don't know what's wrong with people like those, it must be something even beyond autism.
Pretty much. I appreciate what all Frank has done over the years, but it feels like his current online presence is less focused on the public game preservation he did years ago, and more on getting more things to justify the existence of his foundation. The fact that he helped hype an auction of an unreleased localization prototype of a D-tier NES game to the point that it sold for $20,000 or something insane is kinda hilarious to me. What better way to "prove" that game preservation has to be done by some well-moneyed foundation (read: his) than to help generate headlines about a prototype game selling for five figures?
I find it outright hilarious that CEO's, c-suites, and the creators all thought extensions of copyright law would work in their favor, and not confine all but the most popular stuff to obscurity. This is painfully clear when looking at books.
Many 1800's works are still popular and well known today, because they came out in an era where the copyright laws were only 40 years from date of publication. Oscar Wilde, H.G. Wells, Jane Austin, Robert Louis Stevenson, Mark Twain, Charles Dickens, Alexandre Dumas, all have had their works re-discovered by later generations and made popular again.
Then suddenly in 1910-ish they decided to up it to 55 years, pushing as far back as 1870's publications.. While there are some works from 1910 and 1920 that have survived in popularity, that era has largely fallen out of popular opinion. Anne of Green Gables, The Little Colonel, Little Nemo, all massively popular then but almost completely forgotten about now. Then in 1976 they made it worse by extending the copyright to 70 years. 1930's and 1940's published works got shoved out of the public awareness if they weren't 10/10's.
The reason this is a big deal is because back when copyrighted works became public domain during the lifetimes of the people who originally enjoyed it, they would share it with their children and grandchildren, and new generations would become interested. The story wouldn't become "outdated" since the small details would never be forgotten entirely by the masses. When archaic old language became too much of a hurdle, updated or modernized versions would become available, keeping the media alive and current. Once copyright got long enough that the masses can completely forget things even existed, then media suddenly started to "age". Ben-Hur was published in 1880, had another wave of popularity in the 1920's/1930's when it went public domain, another in the late 50's and early 60's with the Charlton Heston movie, and another movie as recent as 2016.
based. it's extremely funny that the industry didn't see this coming. It's pretty obivous though-- can't make money of your ip if no one gives a shit about it anymore.
Conan the Barbarian and Kull not making it to 100% public domain despite coming out in 30s has been a disaster.
For the life of me, I can't understand why creatives aren't pushing and striking to demand copyright get cut back down to 40 years. They are working hard to create stuff that has a 99.99% chance of being completely forgotten about once the initial sales die down. And copyright will keep it locked up and away from any potential fans until after the creator is dead. By then no one cares anymore.
Remember when they tried to revive Little Nemo in the 90's with the NES game and that movie? Failed hard on both counts. No one cared anymore. It wasn't because it was too old, Ben-Hur and Romeo and Juliet proves too old doesn't exist. It was because it was expecting people to know and care about Little Nemo despite being locked behind copyright for decades. Instead kids saw some non-Disney animated film that was bizarre and confusing, and parents saw a children's movie that had objectionable content they didn't want their kids to see. Had Nemo not faded out of the public eye, it might have been received as an decent attempt to create some form of over-arching universe/plot for Nemo's crazy dreams while referencing a number of things from the original comic. Such a thing would be enjoyed and fondly remembered by fans of the original comic, if they weren't mostly dead by the time it came out. Instead it was flop city, and the IP is dead now.
If copyright was shortened it would also force companies to rely less on legacy sales of older products, thus increasing the demand for current writers, directors, producers, etc.
Every single media industry would benefit from this, at least in terms of fans, consumers, and workers
Bad for the suits tho, so it'll be hard to make happen
Also, in regards to the OP, it would be nice to see a legal way to get all these boatloads of games but that will never happen and most likely any attempt to do so will just kill a superior form of piracy, so, yeah. Hopefully we can end up with a Disney+ scenario where a companies' entire back catalog is just accessible almost in its entirety for one flat fee
This doesn't make any sense. Why would copyright specifically have an affect on a generations enjoyment of an IP? The books are still available, and are still in circulation. If people wanted their kids to enjoy these stories they could easily buy them. People aren't not reading old shit because it isn't being sold lmao, they're not reading it because there's newer more topical stuff for them to enjoy.
The early 20th century works you list fell out of popularity because they were stories that were largely played out with the public and unrelatable to newer youth generations. Why the frick would someone care about Anne of Green Gables in 1980 when you had masterpieces being made like Indiana Jones, The Terminator, The Godfather, Mad Max, Jaws, Startrek, Star Wars, The Exorcist, Alien, etc? Books were quickly falling out of favor throughout the mid 20th century and being replaced by newer forms of media, this also opened the door for stories crafted specifically for this new media field to shine.
If copyright was shortened it would also force companies to rely less on legacy sales of older products, thus increasing the demand for current writers, directors, producers, etc.
Every single media industry would benefit from this, at least in terms of fans, consumers, and workers
Bad for the suits tho, so it'll be hard to make happen
Also, in regards to the OP, it would be nice to see a legal way to get all these boatloads of games but that will never happen and most likely any attempt to do so will just kill a superior form of piracy, so, yeah. Hopefully we can end up with a Disney+ scenario where a companies' entire back catalog is just accessible almost in its entirety for one flat fee
>If copyright was shortened it would also force companies to rely less on legacy sales of older products, thus increasing the demand for current writers, directors, producers, etc.
There's no reason why this would have to happen. Companies could just pilch already existing IP's of popular shit lmao. You know how much Disney wishes they didn't have to buy Spiderman rights from Sony?
In in the hypothetical extreme of there being 0 copyright, vs infinitely long copyright. The one with 0 is going to devolve into an industry wide convergence on whatever IP's happen to be selling, the opposite would at least have every company having to compete heavily for new ideas.
This study is being used as an explanation for why things like libraries/piracy should exist. it's supposed to shut up the game companies who are QQing about piracy of old games.
Games are persevered a lot better than something film and TV, so it always kind of surprises me when people say stuff like this. I would say that of all mediums, video games certainly have the most robust resources.
This is a good thing, if they start officially releasing them they'll crack down on ROMs. Let those games "die" officially so that they can survive unofficially, that's the only way to save them
This. It's a total money play. They want to be paid by the government to open some shitty museum. The other scammers involved are those Limited Run dickheads who get money for old rope.
The endgame of autists is to make piracy disappear. "Selling all the games officially" is just a vessel to achieve this goal (which will never happen).
I honestly don’t see a problem with this. As many people have mentioned, most of these games are available via alternative means than store or second hand purchases. Let collectors collect if they want to, but for those who want to just play the games, there are many ways and many places to get them from. They should be raising money for Archive if they care.
People like Frank Cifaldi and Andrew Borman are just your average grifters. The "Video Game History Foundation" harass former developers, managers, founders of defunct game studios for materials (mostly the garbage ones pumping out garbage for companies like LJN), and you're supposed to "donate" for their hard work. Oh, and not everything they get actually gets released. See: the id software mario demo, various Atari(?) source code. I forget if Jason Scott works closely with those guys or not.
tbh if they just digitally sold some old game's files for a single dollar and told people "Figure out how to make it run on new hardware on your own." I'd be ok with that.
They usually don't do even that, so I sail the seven seas.
>storage drive exists
Woah I suddenly have all these games that was hard
https://gamehistory.org/who-we-are/
Don't worry guys, the Former Game Master at Nintendo of America is on the case.
>Half these people most likely post on /vr/
Chilling isn't it?
>Andy McNamara
holy shit I remember that dood
unavailable for purchase*
homosexuals, all of you
>*thing they didn't say
>homosexuals, all of me
Why would you even simp for such homosexuals?
Just buy the cartridge off ebay
Autists love to ruin good things in the name of following the rulez. They'll keep pestering about this until it brings more attention about piracy sites that we don't want.
even my actually on the spectrum very christian moralgay friend pirates old games. I don't know what's wrong with people like those, it must be something even beyond autism.
wtf am i your friend ?
Thank you for being so kind, thomas
I though they were advocating for old games to fall into the public domain.
They don't know what they want, as long as people donate to pad Frank Cifaldi's pockets, it's all "they" (meaning Frank) cares about.
Pretty much. I appreciate what all Frank has done over the years, but it feels like his current online presence is less focused on the public game preservation he did years ago, and more on getting more things to justify the existence of his foundation. The fact that he helped hype an auction of an unreleased localization prototype of a D-tier NES game to the point that it sold for $20,000 or something insane is kinda hilarious to me. What better way to "prove" that game preservation has to be done by some well-moneyed foundation (read: his) than to help generate headlines about a prototype game selling for five figures?
They should really open up that controller and cram the cable into into it to hide the part where the wrap has gone missing
These are the same people who justify shoplifting.
No way, they're worse! Lucky them Hitler came first. Otherwise, *they* would be considered the arch villains of history. YUCK!
I find it outright hilarious that CEO's, c-suites, and the creators all thought extensions of copyright law would work in their favor, and not confine all but the most popular stuff to obscurity. This is painfully clear when looking at books.
Many 1800's works are still popular and well known today, because they came out in an era where the copyright laws were only 40 years from date of publication. Oscar Wilde, H.G. Wells, Jane Austin, Robert Louis Stevenson, Mark Twain, Charles Dickens, Alexandre Dumas, all have had their works re-discovered by later generations and made popular again.
Then suddenly in 1910-ish they decided to up it to 55 years, pushing as far back as 1870's publications.. While there are some works from 1910 and 1920 that have survived in popularity, that era has largely fallen out of popular opinion. Anne of Green Gables, The Little Colonel, Little Nemo, all massively popular then but almost completely forgotten about now. Then in 1976 they made it worse by extending the copyright to 70 years. 1930's and 1940's published works got shoved out of the public awareness if they weren't 10/10's.
The reason this is a big deal is because back when copyrighted works became public domain during the lifetimes of the people who originally enjoyed it, they would share it with their children and grandchildren, and new generations would become interested. The story wouldn't become "outdated" since the small details would never be forgotten entirely by the masses. When archaic old language became too much of a hurdle, updated or modernized versions would become available, keeping the media alive and current. Once copyright got long enough that the masses can completely forget things even existed, then media suddenly started to "age". Ben-Hur was published in 1880, had another wave of popularity in the 1920's/1930's when it went public domain, another in the late 50's and early 60's with the Charlton Heston movie, and another movie as recent as 2016.
based. it's extremely funny that the industry didn't see this coming. It's pretty obivous though-- can't make money of your ip if no one gives a shit about it anymore.
For the life of me, I can't understand why creatives aren't pushing and striking to demand copyright get cut back down to 40 years. They are working hard to create stuff that has a 99.99% chance of being completely forgotten about once the initial sales die down. And copyright will keep it locked up and away from any potential fans until after the creator is dead. By then no one cares anymore.
Remember when they tried to revive Little Nemo in the 90's with the NES game and that movie? Failed hard on both counts. No one cared anymore. It wasn't because it was too old, Ben-Hur and Romeo and Juliet proves too old doesn't exist. It was because it was expecting people to know and care about Little Nemo despite being locked behind copyright for decades. Instead kids saw some non-Disney animated film that was bizarre and confusing, and parents saw a children's movie that had objectionable content they didn't want their kids to see. Had Nemo not faded out of the public eye, it might have been received as an decent attempt to create some form of over-arching universe/plot for Nemo's crazy dreams while referencing a number of things from the original comic. Such a thing would be enjoyed and fondly remembered by fans of the original comic, if they weren't mostly dead by the time it came out. Instead it was flop city, and the IP is dead now.
If copyright was shortened it would also force companies to rely less on legacy sales of older products, thus increasing the demand for current writers, directors, producers, etc.
Every single media industry would benefit from this, at least in terms of fans, consumers, and workers
Bad for the suits tho, so it'll be hard to make happen
Also, in regards to the OP, it would be nice to see a legal way to get all these boatloads of games but that will never happen and most likely any attempt to do so will just kill a superior form of piracy, so, yeah. Hopefully we can end up with a Disney+ scenario where a companies' entire back catalog is just accessible almost in its entirety for one flat fee
Conan the Barbarian and Kull not making it to 100% public domain despite coming out in 30s has been a disaster.
What happened? Conan is great.
This doesn't make any sense. Why would copyright specifically have an affect on a generations enjoyment of an IP? The books are still available, and are still in circulation. If people wanted their kids to enjoy these stories they could easily buy them. People aren't not reading old shit because it isn't being sold lmao, they're not reading it because there's newer more topical stuff for them to enjoy.
The early 20th century works you list fell out of popularity because they were stories that were largely played out with the public and unrelatable to newer youth generations. Why the frick would someone care about Anne of Green Gables in 1980 when you had masterpieces being made like Indiana Jones, The Terminator, The Godfather, Mad Max, Jaws, Startrek, Star Wars, The Exorcist, Alien, etc? Books were quickly falling out of favor throughout the mid 20th century and being replaced by newer forms of media, this also opened the door for stories crafted specifically for this new media field to shine.
>If copyright was shortened it would also force companies to rely less on legacy sales of older products, thus increasing the demand for current writers, directors, producers, etc.
There's no reason why this would have to happen. Companies could just pilch already existing IP's of popular shit lmao. You know how much Disney wishes they didn't have to buy Spiderman rights from Sony?
In in the hypothetical extreme of there being 0 copyright, vs infinitely long copyright. The one with 0 is going to devolve into an industry wide convergence on whatever IP's happen to be selling, the opposite would at least have every company having to compete heavily for new ideas.
I bought a used cd on eBay.
That's basically piracy.
The original artist didn't receive a dime.
This study is being used as an explanation for why things like libraries/piracy should exist. it's supposed to shut up the game companies who are QQing about piracy of old games.
Games are persevered a lot better than something film and TV, so it always kind of surprises me when people say stuff like this. I would say that of all mediums, video games certainly have the most robust resources.
tl;dr: anti-piracy gays are just nuts
This is a good thing, if they start officially releasing them they'll crack down on ROMs. Let those games "die" officially so that they can survive unofficially, that's the only way to save them
This is just how they turn it to be all alike
>SEE? SEE?! OUR """HISTORIACAL PRESERVATION WORK IS IMPORTANT"""!
>I MEAN LOOK AT US -WE- -ARE- -IMPORTANT!-
fricking attentionprostitutes
This. It's a total money play. They want to be paid by the government to open some shitty museum. The other scammers involved are those Limited Run dickheads who get money for old rope.
The endgame of autists is to make piracy disappear. "Selling all the games officially" is just a vessel to achieve this goal (which will never happen).
Why though? Why are they such bootlickers when they receive nothing in return
It's pretty obvious you can't spell "unavoidable" so you settled with that word salad. You're pathetic. Die.
*whips out katana*
Most of those are shovelware, so who cares? Games worth playing will be preserved.
I honestly don’t see a problem with this. As many people have mentioned, most of these games are available via alternative means than store or second hand purchases. Let collectors collect if they want to, but for those who want to just play the games, there are many ways and many places to get them from. They should be raising money for Archive if they care.
People like Frank Cifaldi and Andrew Borman are just your average grifters. The "Video Game History Foundation" harass former developers, managers, founders of defunct game studios for materials (mostly the garbage ones pumping out garbage for companies like LJN), and you're supposed to "donate" for their hard work. Oh, and not everything they get actually gets released. See: the id software mario demo, various Atari(?) source code. I forget if Jason Scott works closely with those guys or not.
https://warosu.org/vr/image/JdYfll88Lgr-88qTKRlRFA
Bot thread
tbh if they just digitally sold some old game's files for a single dollar and told people "Figure out how to make it run on new hardware on your own." I'd be ok with that.
They usually don't do even that, so I sail the seven seas.