Anybody collect game backups? Can backups be a collection?

[Nature Boy]

Spot on. It amazes me that people still use the ridiculous "OMG INTERLECTUAL PROPERTY = TEH PHYSICAL PROPERTY!!!" argument.

So just because you're not walking out of Wal-Mart with that Spinter Cell game under you're jacket it doesn't count as stealing?

My car illustration was used to illustrate how ridiculous I think the statement "I can't afford to buy the games I want to play" is.

And if *you* had some intellectual property worth protecting I'm sure you'd be singing another tune.

[Atari7800]

I'm sticking with the "It's an obsolete system so it's OK to pirate" group here. Call me an a-hole. I've certainly been called worse names here.

<You're an a-hole, Atari7800>

I've got 400+ burned Dreamcast games. I've bought a few originals because they were cheap, or the burned copies I had didn't work right. I bought all the retail versions of the 2-D shooting games, and I have bought every shooter that's come out in Japan up til now. I'll probably buy a few of those new games from the Goatstore, too.

I have a few Sega CD copies, as well as at least 20 burns of 3DO games.

The rest of the 2500+ games in my collection are all original.

The Dreamcast copies are definately part of my collection, but I don't count them towards my "final numbers." They are games, but they aren't collectibles.

Oh yeah... some of those DC burns are emulars and disks full of ROMS.

There you have it.

[SegaAges]

Ah yes, pirating.

I have replied to numerous other pirating topics, just because I know alot about it.

Let me tell you some of my background so that you know where I am coming from in my response: I used to be deep into pirating. At one point, I was involved in a true pirating ring, as well as working for a team that actually ripped the games. Burnt, I have about 250 dc games, 20-30 saturn, 20-30 psx, 10-15 ps2, 400-450 gba. The only thing I pirate know are music albums, and once in a blue moon (maybe once every 3 or 4 months), I willl download another dc game.

pirating is not wrong, as long as you buy some original games. many people will probably say that it is only alright as long as you do it for dead systems, but i disagree. i don't want to go out and spend 20 for some crap game, when i could pirate it for .50 . i have actually had the instance of 2 of my dc games not working anymore (street fighter alpha 3 and tokyo xtreme racer), and i already had the pirated versions of them, so it was cool. 99% of the games i have pirated i will never buy. i mean, what is the use of buying all 4 jet set radio games for dc (jet set radio[jap], jet set radio[pal], jet grind radio[ntsc], de la jet set radio[jap]). I do own a few games that I could only obtain through pirating though (DC - Half-Life[unreleased], PBA Bowling 2001[unreleased]; PSX - Thrill Kill[unreleased], Thrill Wheel[unreleased as far as I know]).

The way I see it, as long as you are buying the games that you want, than it is alright.

Now what if you are broke (like I always am)? It sucks sitting in a room of games, all of which I have beaten already with no money to buy another game. Well, that is when I would usually pirate, and still do (once in a blue moon i will download a couple dc games). Does this mean there is something wrong and that I am a big criminal? No, I own more games and systems than any person I know (not counting you DP folks). Even look at my sig, I put my collection into ign not counting my pirated games.

I will eventually end up in the market making games, and I know my stuff will get pirated, but as long as people realize that it is a good game and buy it after it is pirated, than who am I to complain.

Pirated materials are a collection, but as long as you don't boast about it on the ign collection thing or anything, than no big deal. something like the ign collection service would be a little inappropriate to talk about your pirated collection. As long as you only boast about what you buy rather than burn, than keep that burner going.

[Ed Oscuro]

You can also collect gold Double Eagles from 1933 (though you can't legally own them),

10 gold double eagles slipped through the cracks in 1933. All 10 were recovered 9 of which were destroyed. The US goverment sold the last one at auction a year or two ago and it sold for some crazy ammount. 8 million or something.

Soooo if you had the money you could legally own all the 1933 double eagles left in the world. All 1 of them.
Hmm, I didn't know about that auction (http://www.coinresource.com/pr_mint/DoubleEagle1933.htm) (which was in 2002, a while after the books I've read were published). However there are others in existence, they are on display and are government property, and cannot be legally owned. I believe there are just two others (8 were destroyed more or less right away, 10 left the mint illegally and 9 were destroyed after 1944 when the Mint discovered these were missing, and the last one was illegally taken by King Faouk of Egypt, and finally siezed by Secret Service agents as the link says) on display at the Smithsonian and they have been there for years.

Good thing they moved the last "free" one to Fort Knox from the World Trade Center! Sucks to the British guy who lost it to agents in 1996. Now the Treasury didn't just let the coin go; they added $20 to the final sale price which then went into the treasury. Aside from some 2500 proof $20 coins (which may not have been gold, hell if I know, saw 'em @ the ANA site) that's what happened to the last coins.

Good points, BuyAtari!


pirating is not wrong, as long as you buy some original games.
Why can't the issue be looked at in a straightforward manner? If people just pirate games that means that they and the industry have colluded (however unwittingly on the industry's behalf) to do work on behalf of that pirate which will never be paid.

If I pirate two games for the GC and buy one, I can't claim that I'm still adding a positive amount to the Nintendo bank account. Those two pirated games may have been developed by anybody, and they won't see that money. Like it or not, nobody can afford to spend their time and money making movies, music, or games that people enjoy but won't pay for.

I think the industry has to be smart about the situation, and they agree with me, and whether that results in trying to find a happy medium between good price and quality or increased counter-piracy measures, I'll support it. Now ask "which approach would I take?" and you'd realize that with all the high-tech competition and possible profits from $60 games that the budget games aren't terribly thrilling to your average developer who has to keep the dev team paid, the execs paid, and the investors happy.

I wouldn't say piracy is stealing. It is, however, a certain move by the consumer to let the games industry know that they are either unhappy with the prices they're being offered, or a sign that far too many people are very resourceful in screwing the system. The big "free email" guys are finding this out for themselves with plans to create for-pay email, and it makes me wonder what exactly Google is planning to do with their multi-GB planned free* email accounts.

*yes free, that's what the article said!

[zmweasel]

I will eventually end up in the market making games.

While I admire your confidence, I doubt your ability. How exactly do you intend to "end up in the market making games"?

-- Z.

[Li Wang]

So just because you're not walking out of Wal-Mart with that Spinter Cell game under you're jacket it doesn't count as stealing?

My car illustration was used to illustrate how ridiculous I think the statement "I can't afford to buy the games I want to play" is.

Well, it was a poor and tired one. Piracy CAN be theft. If you see piracy as an alternative from buying original games for current systems that you otherwise would purchase, that's obviously not good. However, all kinds of scenarios in which pirates aren't necessarily hooligans who want to ransack your town and eat your babies have been spelled out for you earlier in this thread. You may find it hard to believe, but the concept in itself isn't always inherently evil. If these were all poor excuses to justify stealing and not genuine beliefs, why would anyone bother trying to explain it to some random people on a message board in the first place? The view that piracy is always "stealing" in every case because the law defines it as such just isn't correct.


And if *you* had some intellectual property worth protecting I'm sure you'd be singing another tune.

Oh, of course. Anyone who dosen't adhere to your archaic, black and white view of the issue MUST be a hypocrite.

[zektor]

I like piracy because it helps me save the gas I would have had to use to drive all the way to Walmart to physically steal my games. :)

[Aussie2B]

It sucks sitting in a room of games, all of which I have beaten already with no money to buy another game.

You have over 400 games, and you've beaten every single one? o_O I find that very hard to believe... At the very least, I'd doubt that you played them all to the fullest, even if you have beaten them all.

Anyway...

I believe all piracy falls into a grey area. You can't cut the line at modern stuff. Take for example, Super Mario Bros. 3. Imagine some kid who has never owned any version of SMB3, so he downloads and plays the NES version or the All-Stars version. You can say "that doesn't hurt the creators", but then the GBA port comes along. What's to stop the kid from thinking "I've already played this game a lot. Why should I bother to buy it?" Of course, maybe the kid will love the game so much that he decides to buy it or maybe he wants to experience the extras. How about a different example: the Breath of Fire GBA ports. I can absolutely 100% guarantee that there are plenty of RPG fans out there who download every SNES RPG in existence, and once the ports came, they couldn't care less. I don't personally know anyone who has done such, but it's just a given. Many RPG fans don't play an RPG twice even if they paid for it, and when they already have the ROM, they sure as hell aren't going to pay for the game when they can play it whenever they want for free. You can argue that maybe a small number of those kids would want a portable version of it, but then I can think of plenty of examples of home console ports. It goes on and on. As long as the creators still have a copyright for the game and aren't offering it as shareware, it's just not cool to download the games. You can't predict what old games will become new again.

[hu6800]

Ah yes, pirating.

I have replied to numerous other pirating topics, just because I know alot about it.

Let me tell you some of my background so that you know where I am coming from in my response: I used to be deep into pirating. At one point, I was involved in a true pirating ring, as well as working for a team that actually ripped the games. Burnt, I have about 250 dc games, 20-30 saturn, 20-30 psx, 10-15 ps2, 400-450 gba. The only thing I pirate know are music albums, and once in a blue moon (maybe once every 3 or 4 months), I willl download another dc game.

pirating is not wrong, as long as you buy some original games. many people will probably say that it is only alright as long as you do it for dead systems, but i disagree. i don't want to go out and spend 20 for some crap game, when i could pirate it for .50 . i have actually had the instance of 2 of my dc games not working anymore (street fighter alpha 3 and tokyo xtreme racer), and i already had the pirated versions of them, so it was cool. 99% of the games i have pirated i will never buy. i mean, what is the use of buying all 4 jet set radio games for dc (jet set radio[jap], jet set radio[pal], jet grind radio[ntsc], de la jet set radio[jap]). I do own a few games that I could only obtain through pirating though (DC - Half-Life[unreleased], PBA Bowling 2001[unreleased]; PSX - Thrill Kill[unreleased], Thrill Wheel[unreleased as far as I know]).

The way I see it, as long as you are buying the games that you want, than it is alright.

Now what if you are broke (like I always am)? It sucks sitting in a room of games, all of which I have beaten already with no money to buy another game. Well, that is when I would usually pirate, and still do (once in a blue moon i will download a couple dc games). Does this mean there is something wrong and that I am a big criminal? No, I own more games and systems than any person I know (not counting you DP folks). Even look at my sig, I put my collection into ign not counting my pirated games.

I will eventually end up in the market making games, and I know my stuff will get pirated, but as long as people realize that it is a good game and buy it after it is pirated, than who am I to complain.

Pirated materials are a collection, but as long as you don't boast about it on the ign collection thing or anything, than no big deal. something like the ign collection service would be a little inappropriate to talk about your pirated collection. As long as you only boast about what you buy rather than burn, than keep that burner going.


I have so many burned PCEngine cd's its retarded!
(and some other unmentioned)

I usually GIVE them away to people who buy systems from me
so they have something to test and make sure what they bought works.
For all i care they can keep or throw away after.

If your gonna come off like you have never done anything wrong , your only bullshitting yourself.

[ArnoldRimmer83]

In the case of games being rererelased, it's true you don't know what game a company is going to rerelease. But in most cases it's a safe bet it's gonna be a game that was a hit back in the day. The type of game that most people who already own that system, most likely also still own today. Most old Nes games or such are probably not gonna fit in that category. While there are plenty of forgotten crappy games, there are many games that are just as good as the hits that will most likely never be given new life. Obscure gems like Shadow of the Ninja, Shatterhand, Little Sampson and Jackal are just a few examples of the many Nes games that would fit that description. And licensed games (Such as Batman, or coin ups like Spiderman and Willow) aren't gonna be rereleased because companies don't typically like paying for a license again, especially for a license that is no longer very popular like an old movie. In these cases, the games are out of print and the companies will probably never attempt to make another profit off them.

Also when companies rerelease a game it's usually a good idea to add interesting extras that actually enhance the original. Otherwise they won't just lose money to people who are pirating, but those who own the original game on the original system will not care. That is going to be a big problem with the Nes rereleases on GBA. Why pay 20 dollars for Super Mario Bros? The worst part is, this would actually be a great oppurtunity for Nintendo to release Famicom games never before seen in the US. But any games in these rereleases that was a Japan only release is simply going to be ingnored for the US. I would actually be interested in buying Goemon if it was released here translated, but no dice. It also is annoying that Nintendo could easily make a compilation of several of their old games, yet they refused to do it. Probably cause they realize that nostalgia blind people will continue to overpay for these old games, most of which are common and easily attained on the original system if you're persistent.

How about finally putting some of their coin ups on a compilation or a home cart? How about finally giving us Donkey Kong, the arcade version? (And without having to buy that piece of crap Donkey Kong 64 just to get it) What about the arcade versions of the Punch Out games? And some of their obscure arcade games that never saw home release like the quirky and fun Sky Skipper? Nintendo could be trying much harder.

I personally have yet to try SMB3 Advance, because I already bought this game years ago for Nes, and I bought it on SMB All Stars. It may have extra features, but Nintendo made it so you need to go out and buy another GBA, and their Card e Reader to be able to experience the new levels and items. Oh and you also have to go through the trouble of "collecting" cards and rare cards in order to get this stuff. I find that to be a ripoff and I am not supporting this. Especially since Nintendo has seemed all to eager to ditch the card e reader right now, almost as quickly as they did with ROB years ago.

[Nature Boy]

If these were all poor excuses to justify stealing and not genuine beliefs, why would anyone bother trying to explain it to some random people on a message board in the first place?.

I figure it's just part of human nature. Nobody ever really admits to being in the wrong. No matter what people do in life, good or bad, they generally try to justify their actions. And what better place than online?


Oh, of course. Anyone who dosen't adhere to your archaic, black and white view of the issue MUST be a hypocrite.

heh heh - I know, I know. I'm guilty of taking a cheap shot. :)

But hidden in the cheap shot was a valid point I think. If you had spent countless hours building a game of your own you'd (likely) want to be compensated for it. If everybody downloaded it for free and you never saw a dime, well, I'm guessing your view on piracy might change.

(And this is why I've started paying for shareware personally. Someday I'd *like* to create an Atari 8-bit game (I admit I probably never will though), and although I'd distribute a ROM of it I'd be disappointed if nobody ever bought 'the real thing,' and likely wouldn't distribute another game again).

[Li Wang]

But hidden in the cheap shot was a valid point I think. If you had spent countless hours building a game of your own you'd (likely) want to be compensated for it. If everybody downloaded it for free and you never saw a dime, well, I'm guessing your view on piracy might change.

Well...yeah, obviously it would be bad if people the who otherwise would have bought the thing pirated it instead. Didn't we already establish that? I think maybe what you're trying to say is that there's a danger in people slipping into pirating stuff out of habit.

[Code]

I'm just curious but how do you people feel about places like Blockbuster and Hollywood Video? Personally, I would group them in the same category as people who download and sell copied games.

They pay a price for a game, then they turn around and rent it time and time again, making themselves a healthy profit and much more money that the original game designers or distributors make from them off the original cost of the game. In my opinion, that is no better than selling copies of games on Ebay. Essentially, it is the same thing. There is probably no greater threat to game makers that movie stores who rent the games. This in my opinion, greatly encourages piracy. Yet, they continue to do it. They are making money off someone else's ideas and products.

I'm not saying that I condone piracy, I ride the middle of the fence. but I definitely think the consumer market has been bled dry at every turn from major companies publishing crap games, software, music, etc.

One thing we can all probably agree on, piracy is the voice of the dissatisfied consumer and will most likely be around for many years to come.

[Melf]

Let's say I want to check out Madden 2004. I can rent it from Blockbuster, play it for a week, and return it. EA makes $0, Sony makes $0, Blockbuster makes $5. Or, I can download it and play it for a week. The only difference is, Blockbuster doesn't make the $5. If the game is a game that I was only planning on renting, then that doesn't hurt sales.

The difference is, if you DL it and like it, you're not likely to buy it, since you already have it burned. If you had rented it, you had to return the game, thus probably leading to a purchase. Is this the rule? Not always. You might rent it again and beat it, or you might DL it anyway. I guess it's a "why buy the cow when the milk's free" sort of situation.


Let's compare apples with apples. What if the car was no longer being sold new, and you could walk by and make a digital copy of the car so that the owner never knew you had a copy?

Just because the car company is no longer selling it doesn't make it fair game. What if they were thinking of releasing it later on? It's still theirs and they can do what they see fit with it.


Have you hurt the new car companies? Not if you weren't planning on buying a new car anyway.

You're no longer going to buy a car, so a company just lost a sale.


Have you hurt the car industry? Actually, you've helped it. You're going to have to buy oil and gas and tires just like everyone else. The person who owns the car hasn't lost anything, the new car companies haven't lost anything, so the only people you've ripped off are the sleezy second hand car dealerships.

Buying gas, oil, and tires does nothing for car companies. It's little consolation to say "I copied a $12k car but look! I'm buying $10 in gas!"

As for the sleezy dealerships, how do you think car companies make money? The same argument could be made for the sleezy furniture and electronic stores, the sleezy supermarkets, and the sleezy clothing stores. The middle man is everywhere and until everything can be bought directly from the manufacturer, that's the way our economy is going to operate. I don't see anyone saying "Fucking Shop-Rite! Making all that money from selling Heinz ketchup!

Just because the car company is no longer selling it doesn;t make it fair game. What if they were thinking of releasing it later on? It's still theirs and they can do what they see fit with it. :P

[goatdan]

They pay a price for a game, then they turn around and rent it time and time again, making themselves a healthy profit and much more money that the original game designers or distributors make from them off the original cost of the game. In my opinion, that is no better than selling copies of games on Ebay.

The difference is they _pay_ for a copy of the game. If I purchase a copy of some obscure game today for my GameCube for $20.00 and turn around and sell it in a year for $60.00 on eBay, I still paid for the game. Yes, I made $40.00, but the game's cost was $20 and thus the developers got paid.

If I pirate a game and sell it on eBay for the same price, the developers get nothing and I get $60.00 for my pocket. That is $60.00 that never goes back to the developers in any way, shape or form.

Huge difference, in my opinion.

[Ed Oscuro]

The folks at Blockbuster are giving developers money for a game that folks wouldn't have bought at all. Some companies (Square Enix, hmm?) have tried to get rental places to stop renting out games, but that's foolish. Game companies are certainly welcome to distribute games in any format they choose, and if the Phantom model becomes commonplace Blockbuster had better get a piece of that action or go out of business. There've been many instances of a company selling directly to the consumer and bypassing the middleman. Folks who have stores don't like it when this happens, but they owe their livelihood to their suppliers. This isn't an issue like Apple versus their Authorized Apple Dealers, it's just a matter of what's efficient and cheapest for the consumer. All things considered, Blockbuster's current business model faces the possibility of being brutally outmoded. Currently Blockbuster offers a service very much appreciated by customers, and when games (as well as movies) are available in hardcopy form only there's a need to let people rent them.

The law could really go either way - they could decide it's illegal for places like Blockbuster to rent games, or they could say it's wholly legal. I'm very much in favor of rental places being allowed to work legally, because the distributor could've charged any price they wanted. Very important, because it's expected that they should have only one shot to make a profit off the game. In the case of a subscription service such as Konami's I-Sky phone services allowing folks to play whatever games Konami has ported to the phones or use ringtones and images, there's an understanding that the value of the service is more than just the value of some intellectual property - the infrastructure demands continual payments. This is why MMORPGs are so popular - everybody wins if the developer can skim enough off the top (they're ever hopeful they will) to make the project a success.

Killing off rentals would be depriving consumers of an accustomed service, would cause irreparable harm to a legitimate industry, and would open the question of whether companies are allowed to take (wholly undeserved) multiple shots at your wallet for a game that will never have extra value added. Whenever game companies need to support a large infrastructure to keep discs sitting on shelves and update GBA cartridges, I'll support them taking extra money for that service. Until then...they're just looking for ways to keep claiming that folks who wouldn't have bought stuff are "stealing" their profits.

I'm against piracy, but you have to admit this MUST be the logical process for releasing a game in hardcopy form:

1.) Figure out how many people will buy it and budget/print accordingly
2.) Keep people from stealing physical copies
3.) Take the money and make new games

I know for a fact that in Japan (and here in the states if the truth is known) there's not only a concern with people picking up stuff and reading it there, only to leave without buying it, but there's a concern with people entering stores and stealing books. Yet the bookstores manage to turn a profit. If they want to crack down on theft they will, and they do.

Folks who pirate games are folks who were willing to take the steps to get ahold of a pirated copy. Very few people actually accept existence's limits on morality and their wallet, and are constantly looking for ways to circumvent the law. I hope the game console makers come up with good antipiracy measures to thwart pirates, but they can't deal with the issue by trying to claim they're losing money and start trying to extort it from certain places. I can't decide for any specific company, but if I had a game company I would limit how much I went after piracy - there's a point where it just gets ridiculous, and I've seen companies I respect violate their image as corporate servants to the public, with the Apple/Pepsi/RIAA fiasco (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/02/02/apple_users_disgust_at_riaas/) in an attempt to curb piracy.

In short, if you want game companies to be able to stamp out piracy at the roots and want copyright owners to be the sole authority through which their materials can be distributed, be careful - you might get what you asked for, with raids and game "services" that essentially have you renting fixed content that is buggy at release and never really updated - think PC gaming, but without the benefit of content packs and MMO interaction (which is what the Phantom is all about, after all - selling you buggy FPSes and making you pay again and again to play them every month, with a service fee).

[Nature Boy]

The thing with piracy is that we tend to overrate it's importance here. The majority of people who rent games are *not* making copies of them.

I personally don't have any issues with the renting of games. The publishers/developers are still making money off the sale of their product. And the people renting the game are not trying to get something for nothing - they're paying for their time with the game.

If the publishers got in on the act they could make themselves a tidy sum I think.

[Ed Oscuro]

The thing with piracy is that we tend to overrate it's importance here. The majority of people who rent games are *not* making copies of them.
Yes, but even more people who are pirating games can't really be counted as "lost profits." They see an opening for them to screw the system, so they will! Piracy is very important (not to say it's terribly bad, but it has great potential to be), but it can only be really stamped out through new methods or plain old fashioned corporate oppression.


If the publishers got in on the act they could make themselves a tidy sum I think.
How, besides the adoption of Phantom-style services? Anything else is abuse of their limited right to extort money from us for a product that is fixed and could've been sold for whatever amount they like. They set a price judged on an analysis of how well they think it'll sell along with a required amount of income and hope that the game will sell enough to make the points fall along the graph at the right place.

[Nature Boy]

Yes, but even more people who are pirating games can't really be counted as "lost profits."

Sure they can. Anti-piracy measures cost money. And costs affect profits.


How, besides the adoption of Phantom-style services?

If I knew how I'd be rich my friend. And I ain't rich...

But I think they probably *will* adopt something like the Phantom. Maybe not exactly, but that's a start.


Anything else is abuse of their limited right to extort money from us...

This is where you lose me. How can a video game company extort money from me? If I don't want to spend the money I don't *have* to. And that *doesn't* mean I get to pirate anything. It just means that I *can* live without video games.

You make it sound like you are talking about basic human needs like water or electricity or something.