Backing up Video Games

[lordofduct]

Sorry if this poll has already done, i havent seen it though.

So what do yall think about the dreaded bottlegging thing. Got probs with it at all. Me personally i think programmers and designers should get there monies for the art they performed. But if the game is so hard to get like PDS at 150 bones, then hey, shit the creators arent even getting money of that.

 

[mal]

I think the thread title is a little misleading. Backing up software implies that you already own a copy of said software.

I won't change it because I know how precious people can get about their polls.

 

[lordofduct]

coo coo.... thanks mal.

 

[mal]

Originally posted by lordofduct@Sep 2, 2004 @ 05:41 PM

coo coo....

Have you turned into a pigeon or something?

 

[lordofduct]

RAHHHH, i am a monster pigeon from New York PECK, PECK, i will now fly about and shit on random people RAHHHHHHH, COO COO, PLLLLLPPPPPPP.

 

[Posthvman]

i think it is fine to have a backup copy of any game, most people don't want to pay $50 for a new game, nor wait 8 months for it to drop to $35.

it isn't like the makers are losing money, cause if someone really wants the game, they'll retardedly pay $50 or someone who rather use their money for something better than video games can just pay $15 for a copy.

but the saturn remark, i think its great for saturn games, many hard to find, and many you can download now, just gotta have the saturn modded or a SEGA CDR.

i need to find a model 2 mod chip now i think of it.

 

[lordofduct]

ummmm, the more and more people that look at it like, "pay the retarded $50 so ill just a back up" will cause more and more loss of profits for developers.

 

[ExCyber]

More interesting is this question: Why is it (okay | wrong) to copy software/books/games/movies? It's easy to take sides on an issue, but explaining your reasoning is usually a lot more useful in the long run.

i think it is fine to have a backup copy of any game, most people don't want to pay $50 for a new game, nor wait 8 months for it to drop to $35

Most people don't really want to pay for anything. However, they are generally willing to pay based on the value of things to them. So if your argument is that prices are too high, what is an acceptable price? Would you be willing to pay that lower price if the game came on a plainly-labeled disc without a printed manual and jewel case?

the more and more people that look at it like, "pay the retarded $50 so ill just a back up" will cause more and more loss of profits for developers.

At what point, though, is it the responsibility of the developers/publishers to change their habits rather than blaming the market's woes on copying? If the problem is that not enough people are buying games to cover the cost of making them, there are more factors than just copying - competitors, bad games and/or bad reviews leading to a loss of confidence, general economic slowdown, exploding production costs, lack of innovation, too-expensive licensing and distribution infrastructure, and so on. I suspect that these are what publishers are really worried about. They could make modding and copying an absurdly huge pain if they really wanted to, but they aren't willing to pay the price in time to market and production costs to implement strong security measures and really proprietary formats. That's why everyone's using mild hacks of CD and DVD - it's cheap. Even Nintendo does it, despite the crazy-ass stories you'll hear from the sort of people who said that PSX's protection is based on disc color...

 

[Quadriflax]

Originally posted by ExCyber@Sep 2, 2004 @ 03:49 PM

Most people don't really want to pay for anything. However, they are generally willing to pay based on the value of things to them. So if your argument is that prices are too high, what is an acceptable price? Would you be willing to pay that lower price if the game came on a plainly-labeled disc without a printed manual and jewel case?

Actually, yeah, I would. Most times I don't even look at the manual. I just install and play. Rarely do I need reference for anything. I suppose there's the occasional RPG or something that needs a more complex explaination. But even in those cases I can usually figure most things out by myself.

It's hard to say what games are worth playing and even harder to tell which are worth spending the money on. Demos are helpful, but often are too limited, if they even exist at all. Interesting point to note: the last game I played for an extensive amount of time was Enemy Territory--a free download that was free to play.

The price of the game is only part of the overall decision for me to buy a game or not. If I think the cost to playability/longevity ratio is favorable, then yes, I'll buy a game. But it's harder and harder to tell these days. That's why I usually buy console games used (not only are they cheaper, but then you can tell which games stand out amongst the rest). As for PC games... well... like I said, the last game I played a lot of was free. There are a couple games coming up that I'm keeping an eye on, but it remains to be seen what I'll do. I know there was one game I was willing to buy without even playing it, and that was Sam & Max 2, but that's gone now. Figures <_<

 

[Dud]

I'm waiting for what Trenton net has to say about this.

 

[it290]

I buy a lot of games new upon release, just because there's been a lot of good stuff coming out lately and I don't have the patience to wait that long. But I have pirated my fair share of games/software in the past. Usually with games, however, it's just older stuff that's no longer available retail. With apps, it's usually little utils and stuff I would buy if the prices were more reasonable (graphics software in particular -- the main apps are usually priced OK, although I think Adobe's stuff is a bit expensive and Quark is ridiculous -- it's the little plugins and utils that cost an arm and a leg for no good reason). However, I won't attempt to justify these actions within a moral context -- I'll freely admit that they don't entirely square with my morals.

 

[Alexvrb]

I much prefer owning originals. But I have and will likely continue to occasionally download games for older systems. I don't think it's right, but there are degrees of wrong, and I don't put it on the same level as pirating games still in production.

 

[VertigoXX]

Way I see it, if I get a bootleg, play it, and if I REALLY love the game, I will buy it. Same with music. If I've downloaded a CD, decided that it is really worth $15, I go buy it. Sometimes even twice (as with the new Cure album, I bought it on both CD and vinyl). Problem is, most the time, things aren't worth what they cost. I rarely buy games for more than $20. But if I see a new game for less than $10, even if it is some crap title that I would otherwise not be interested in, I usualy end up buying it. (Like Super Bubble Pop for GCN. Got it for $9.88 new at Wal-Mart.) If I see a good game used for $5 or less, and the disc isn't scratched to hell, I buy it for the same reason. But it all comes down to, after paying all my bills and buying gas, I only have about $70 to play with each month. Do I want to blow that all on one game, or do I want to take my fiancé out to dinner for $30 (or twice even when Irish Exchange has their good specials where we get out for less than $14 after a hefty tip), spend about $15 on books, and blow the rest at Record Exchange or CD/Game Exchange (they used to be the same company until the owners split it up and went their separate ways) on $2.50 and $5 used DVD's and $5 games (and even the occasional $10 used game if it is a title I've been after for a while) or hit Wal-Mart and get some new DVD's out of the $5.50 bin?

Plus, my attention span is so short when it comes to games these days, $50 is a waste. Hell, with how shitty a lot of games have been lately, even $5 is a waste. Even a 25 cent CDR is a waste sometimes.

 

[lordofduct]

im with vertigoxx.... especially the music thing. its what makes me wanna buy cds.

 

[VertigoXX]

And there's another issue here when you look at piracy from the music perspective. (Unfortunately, with licensing necessary for official releases, I don't see this happening for games any time soon, except for PC, but there they do shareware to accomplish the same thing.) I could probably read off five dozen CD's on my shelves that I have bought AFTER having downloaded that I would likely have never even heard of or given a chance to if the music download had not been available to me. And I'm not just talking about semi-underground stuff like Grand Theft Audio or My Ruin and Turra Satana or Jack Off Jill and Scarling or Apocalyptica, though there's plenty of them too. I *HATE* modern pop music, yet after hearing the cover of the song from Top Gun on the radio during one of the few times I didn't have NPR turned on, I downloaded the newest Jessica Simpson CD. I was surprised to find that I thought there were enough good tracks on the disc to make it worth purchasing. After being disappointed with the last two albums from U2, I downloaded their newest last year before purchasing it. Turned out, I liked it and ended up buying it. If I hadn't downloaded it, I wouldn't have bothered buying it out of fear of it sucking as bad as POPMart. So even a few major label acts have benifited from my downloading! So when the industry says, yes, internet downloading is hurting the music industry, I say that no, the lack of quality music is what's hurting the industry. The internet piracy is just giving people the chance to find out that the new, big release SUCKS before they waste $15 on it. So internet piracy has only sped up the sales decline that the major lables were facing anyway due to the poor talent quality of the performers they've been signing. Thanks to the internet, it has become far, far easier for smaller, underground acts to sell profitable numbers. But the billboard sales charts only reflect the major labels. So they say that album sales have declined, when in fact they've only spread out more into independant, untracked areas.

 

[schi0249]

I prefer originals. I have been on a kick replacing a bunch of my Saturn/SCD copies with originals. Unfortunatly, there are some I will not be able to buy originals of.. ie PDS, Radiant Silvergun, Snatcher, etc. Who knows, maybe some day.

 

[Kaneda]

I think Vertigo resumed my thought

I think "trying" is a good concept...

i "try" 1 or 2 Music CD per month...and everytime they finished to the trash after the track 5, my PC trash....

A lot of thing made people download more than some years ago (other than the download speed)

- too many poor CD music every year more expensive

- too many bad movies released, with the entry every year more expensive (while GOOD movies are released on less theater every year)

- too many bad games or stupid port or sequel are released

This year I bought perhaps 5 DVD, 1 CD music, a lot of....genny games! (and 10 PC games but for 1€/unit...) and never go to Theater

it's not because I don't have money, it's not because I don't like anything, it's not because it's easier to download.....it's just because I only find these items "buyable"

 

[SamIAm]

I think that if games can be purchased new from a licensed retailer, it should be done. That's how developers make profit, and profit is at least a big part of why they make games.

When it comes to games which are long out of production and are not available by any means that gives the original developers and publishers profit, then I believe that "backing up" is fine. Frankly, I see no reasonable difference between doing that and buying a game used. Either way, you play the game, and the people who made it get nothing.

I suppose that lots of backups saturate the market with copies, which reduces the value and rarity of a game, and in turn may put off publishers from re-releasing software in the future, but that's a pretty weak argument against making backups.

In a small way it is wrong even to play an old out-of-print and commercially unavailable game that was not purchased legitimately, but I would bet that developers are actually happier about people still playing their old games than they are upset about any lost potential for re-release. One could even argue that the interest this generates in video games in general makes the trade worthwhile.

 

[VertigoXX]

Hmmm... and with the number of "retro-collections" we're seeing of late (Sonic, MegaMan, the numerous NES era GBA releases, etc.), maybe the developers and publishers are noticing the retro-scene and testing the waters to see how these collections would sell?

Now if they'd just notice that the reason so many of us get into the retro-scene is because the current generation of games just aren't as much fun...

 

[schi0249]

I want more retro collections. Give me a Castlevania one. Give me a Super Mario one. Give me Alex Kid, Wonderboy,Shinobi. Hell I would even settle for Final Fantasy, Dragon Quest, and PS (yes I know one is coming). Just don't charge $30 for a single game. $20-25 for a collection is perfect.