revolution: should games we own be free to DL?

[nik]

Think about it,

Apparently to my understanding we are allowed to own the ROM's of the games we own.

Is nintendo taking that into consideration? I own alot of SNES NES and N64 games, like the rest of you.

I wonder if we can get all those free?
I might be wrong, but the thought just passed me by...

[Lady Jaye]

It doesn't matter what you or I think about the issue, since Nintendo's the one making the decision in the end. Sure, it'd be cool if the ROMS were free and all on Revolution, and maybe they will be, but IMO, it's pointless to fret too much about this.

[ddockery]

The law says you are allowed to make a backup of your cart. It does not say you can download a rom of it from the internet/rev/whatever. There's quite a big difference here. Besides, how exactly would we prove ownership to Nintendo? Do you really think they're going to have people send in photos of themselves holding the cart or something? I see where you're coming from and understand it, but it's not going to happen.

[Ernster]

God I hope Nintendo use their brains for once and make the downloads free. Knowing them there seeing dollar signs light up in their eyes. The smart thing to do would make all the downloads free as that would be a HUGE selling point and they would sell thousands/millions more consoles just from that, and besides Nintendo already made their money with those games when they sold them a million years ago.

If they choose to go with the fee route well their idiots, no casual gamer is going to give a crap if there are 20/10 year old games which they can buy, when they can download the rom for free. Meh knowing Nintendo these days they'll make the wrong decision :(

[Ed Oscuro]

Different format; nothing new here. I'm sure Nintendo will be gracious enough to keep a registry of who's bought what for the Rev so you never have to re-buy a game.

[mieu_c]

The law says you are allowed to make a backup of your cart. It does not say you can download a rom of it from the internet/rev/whatever. There's quite a big difference here. Besides, how exactly would we prove ownership to Nintendo? Do you really think they're going to have people send in photos of themselves holding the cart or something? I see where you're coming from and understand it, but it's not going to happen.

Unless you kept your receipts from the thrift store and flee markets ;) Cause I keep all of mine....

can you sense the sarcasm there?

[cityside75]

Nintendo of all companies seems to have mastered the art of getting their faithful to keep re-buying the same games (see the GBA library for examples), I don't see why they would change that now...

[nik]

Well, hopefully it won't be crazy amounts. And to tell you the truth, some games I'm willing to spend a bit more since we never had the chance to play them, such as some europe only releases, etc.

[slownerveaction]

Nintendo of all companies seems to have mastered the art of getting their faithful to keep re-buying the same games (see the GBA library for examples), I don't see why they would change that now...

Exactly. Nintendo's old library is a cash cow for 'em, like Disney re-releasing their movies a gazillion times. Over a million copies of Classic NES/Famicom Mini Super Mario Bros were sold worldwide at roughly $20 a pop. Think about that for a second. They're gonna milk it for everything it's worth.

[xmagxus]

Nintendo like all hardware companies lose money / break even on each console sold. It is the games that make the money as I am sure we all know.

If Nintendo makes all the past games free what will end up happening is people will pull a 'psp' to a larger extent. They will buy the revolution for free roms on their TV (these are the average consumers or people that follow the law, not the people that mod their xbox, and such) The revolution will be stricly a rom system and people would buy all their games for ps3 and xbox 360, thus screwing nintendo because they would lose money from hardware sales yet not be pulling in royalties and such as much as they could be from games.

People tend to lose sight of the real games when there is a really neat emulation feature, I think the psp kinda proves that. So honestly for the sake of surviving it would be smart if nintendo charged at least SOMETHING on certain games like metroid and such.

Just my thoughts.

[roushimsx]

I couldn't care less if they charged to download the games or not.

What I DO want to see is a series of adaptors that'll allow you to hook up your old games. I'd totally drop $300 or whatever on a Revolution if I could play my N64/SNES/NES games on it with the aid of some cheap cart adaptors.

Of course, that'd never happen and gamers are going to be stuck paying $20+ for games they already own.

So yea, color me uninterested until something like that happens. If I'm really jonesing to play my NES and SNES games on a single console, I'll get and mod an Xbox. Until then, I'll stick to playing them on either the real hardware or in an emulator (VirtuaNES/NEStopia and SNES9x/ZSNES for the win!).

[le geek]

I'm sure Nintendo will give some games away and charge for others regardless of whether you own them or not. Tracking ownership would be more trouble that it's worth (with the possible exception of GBA and Cube games)...

Cheers,
Ben

[GizmoGC]

Im going to guess some will be free, some you will have to pay for, some will be free with purchase of games (maybe you get a unique code to enter in the allow you to purchase a game?) Who knows

[Blanka789]

I think Nintendo should make it where you could hook up your old systems, put the cart in, and download the ROM to the Revolution's hard drive. As an alternative, they could give you a certain number of downloads a month, and then you have to pay for anything you download after that. 8-) [/code]

[nik]

Maybe they'll just start charging quarters per play... home arcade, yikes, my kids'll run my CC right up!

[Wavelflack]

It doesn't matter whether or not you own a copy. You don't get a free second copy of a game you already own when visiting a store. Same thing here.

[emumuumuucowgomoo]

It doesn't matter whether or not you own a copy. You don't get a free second copy of a game you already own when visiting a store. Same thing here.

No no no...

Back likely before you were born, the courts decided that as part of your rights as a consumer when buying an album, you were ENTITLED to a backup copy. Granted, the argument was about blank tapes and people OMG PIR8ING BEATLEZ ALBUMZ instead of hard disks and people OMG PIR8ING BRITNEY SPEARZ MARIO ROM HACK, but the argument still stands.

The big media companies, ever greedy for extra profits (last I heard, less than 10% of what you pay for an album goes to the artist who, you know, made the album possible), have since bleated and moaned about how tapes suffer degradition and hard disks don't - or degenerate at a lesser rate, plus offer perfect copies of the _____ in question - but this is irrelevant. If it was relevant, it'd be mentioned in the original decision - "hello yes we the courts say u can copy stuff cause it's lesser qualitys" - but it wasn't put that way.

Anyway - so tying it all up - what posters are saying is that if I own a copy of SMB/DH I am allowed a ROM of SMB/DH for my own personal backup. Since ROM-readers aren't readily available - in fact Nintendo has done a lot all they can to discourage these legal instruments - I have a third party rip the ROM and provide it to me under the assumption that it's for my personal, legal use (granted, lots of people lie, but that's a whole other thread).

Anyway - it falls under the category of "SHOULD, but won't be possible". Yeah, if Nintendo was truly hip they'd either throw in a NES-on-a-chip or emulate the old systems in firmware, then provide us with cartridge ports to play our old games. However, with idiot kids scrambling to buy every copy/color of Pokemon so they can COLLECT ALL THE DIFFERENT STATISTICS (ignoring the fact that there are / always will be freeware that simulates this exact same experience - Pokemon is not, no matter how you argue, hard to code), this is not needed. So instead we'll likely have some linkup in the months following the release where we can then buy Hu-Card-alikes and there'll be weirdos who spend $20 so they can play Metroid and Zelda 1 on their new system, because somehow it's important to them to support Nintendo.

Heh.

Anyway, haven't read up on the Evolution, am totally not interested, just chiming in with what I know. Kthx.

[evildead2099]

It doesn't matter whether or not you own a copy. You don't get a free second copy of a game you already own when visiting a store. Same thing here.

No no no...

Back likely before you were born, the courts decided that as part of your rights as a consumer when buying an album, you were ENTITLED to a backup copy.

That has long been my understanding of the matter - that as long as you already paid for the right to enjoy the said media, you are entitled to do whatever you want to it so long as you're not using it for profit nor are you using it in such a manner that detracts from the profits of its creators (i.e. spawning copies of an album for everyone on your block). However, thanks to the Napster fiasco, I've been looking into the technicalities of the matter and have begun to ponder that original court decision; how are we entitled to make personal backup copies of the media we rightfully paid to enjoy when each and every copyrighted game / album / magazine / book / etc. contains a disclaimer that you, the customer, are legally forbidden from making 'unauthorized reproductions'? :hmm: Perhaps we're "authorized" (by the courts) to make copies for our personal use but not authorized (by neither big business nor the courts) to make copies for any other purpose...

[emumuumuucowgomoo]

It doesn't matter whether or not you own a copy. You don't get a free second copy of a game you already own when visiting a store. Same thing here.

No no no...

Back likely before you were born, the courts decided that as part of your rights as a consumer when buying an album, you were ENTITLED to a backup copy.

That has long been my understanding of the matter - that as long as you already paid for the right to enjoy the said media, you are entitled to do whatever you want to it so long as you're not using it for profit nor are you using it in such a manner that detracts from the profits of its creators (i.e. spawning copies of an album for everyone on your block). However, thanks to the Napster fiasco, I've been looking into the technicalities of the matter and have begun to ponder that original court decision; how are we entitled to make personal backup copies of the media we rightfully paid to enjoy when each and every copyrighted game / album / magazine / book / etc. contains a disclaimer that you, the customer, are legally forbidden from making 'unauthorized reproductions'? :hmm: Perhaps we're "authorized" (by the courts) to make copies for our personal use but not authorized (by neither big business nor the courts) to make copies for any other purpose...

Just because a game has a disclaimer doesn't make it law. In fact, some have called into question the legality of "end user licenses" (that piece of crap you have to break in order to get at that chunky yummy Windows XP biscuit).

I can just as easily put a "disclaimer" in my posts that reads, "EVERYTHING IN THE ABOVE POST IS INARGUABLE FACT AND THE SOLE OPINION OF DIGITPRESS.COM. ANY DISSENT SHOULD BE TAKEN TO THE GAMEFAQS BOARDS. ANY VIOLATION OF THIS DISCLAIMER OR THE WORDS, THOUGHTS, IDEAS, OR EXPRESSIONS IN THE ABOVE POST IS A VIOLATION OF THE LAW".

And you can still call me a dipshit and hax0r my post and make it look like I was talking about how I wanted to fingerbang Nurse Edna and post 4000 copies to the gamefaqs.com boards (would you, actually, please? just to further test my hypothesis that A) i couldn't legally do anything about it and B) it'd be incredibly funny).

Disclaimers are basically just information. Not law by themselves. In a perfect world we'd only have disclaimers in cases where we need to know our legal rights - but many companies like to jump the gun. So that's (part of the reason) why people rip them off.

[evildead2099]

I can just as easily put a "disclaimer" in my posts that reads, "EVERYTHING IN THE ABOVE POST IS INARGUABLE FACT AND THE SOLE OPINION OF DIGITPRESS.COM. ANY DISSENT SHOULD BE TAKEN TO THE GAMEFAQS BOARDS. ANY VIOLATION OF THIS DISCLAIMER OR THE WORDS, THOUGHTS, IDEAS, OR EXPRESSIONS IN THE ABOVE POST IS A VIOLATION OF THE LAW".

Hmm... The potential misinformation which those - as you have pointed out, privately sanctioned - disclaimers presents reminds me of disclaimers boasting of 'fair and balanced' articles supposedly contained on pseudo-political websites with titles to the effect of 'HoorayForAmerica-dot-whatever.' :roll:

By the way, thanks for your amusing yet insightful posts; you're already among my favourite contributors 'round here.

[Wavelflack]

It doesn't matter whether or not you own a copy. You don't get a free second copy of a game you already own when visiting a store. Same thing here.

No no no...

Back likely before you were born, the courts decided that as part of your rights as a consumer when buying an album, you were ENTITLED to a backup copy. Granted, the argument was about blank tapes and people OMG PIR8ING BEATLEZ ALBUMZ instead of hard disks and people OMG PIR8ING BRITNEY SPEARZ MARIO ROM HACK, but the argument still stands.

The big media companies, ever greedy for extra profits (last I heard, less than 10% of what you pay for an album goes to the artist who, you know, made the album possible), have since bleated and moaned about how tapes suffer degradition and hard disks don't - or degenerate at a lesser rate, plus offer perfect copies of the _____ in question - but this is irrelevant. If it was relevant, it'd be mentioned in the original decision - "hello yes we the courts say u can copy stuff cause it's lesser qualitys" - but it wasn't put that way.

Anyway - so tying it all up - what posters are saying is that if I own a copy of SMB/DH I am allowed a ROM of SMB/DH for my own personal backup. Since ROM-readers aren't readily available - in fact Nintendo has done a lot all they can to discourage these legal instruments - I have a third party rip the ROM and provide it to me under the assumption that it's for my personal, legal use (granted, lots of people lie, but that's a whole other thread).

Anyway - it falls under the category of "SHOULD, but won't be possible". Yeah, if Nintendo was truly hip they'd either throw in a NES-on-a-chip or emulate the old systems in firmware, then provide us with cartridge ports to play our old games. However, with idiot kids scrambling to buy every copy/color of Pokemon so they can COLLECT ALL THE DIFFERENT STATISTICS (ignoring the fact that there are / always will be freeware that simulates this exact same experience - Pokemon is not, no matter how you argue, hard to code), this is not needed. So instead we'll likely have some linkup in the months following the release where we can then buy Hu-Card-alikes and there'll be weirdos who spend $20 so they can play Metroid and Zelda 1 on their new system, because somehow it's important to them to support Nintendo.

Heh.

Anyway, haven't read up on the Evolution, am totally not interested, just chiming in with what I know. Kthx.

ZZZ...

1. When do you suppose I was born?
2. Nintendo is proposing charging a fee for some (if not all) game downloads.
3. Nintendo is therefore not providing a free rom ripping service.
4. You may or may not be able to legally own back up copies of your games, but that does not equate to Nintendo having to provide you a "back up" rom. That's for the consumer to do the dirty work.
5. "The big media companies, ever greedy for extra profits (last I heard, less than 10% of what you pay for an album goes to the artist who, you know, made the album possible),"

Just wanted to reply to this typical senseless justification of piracy.
A. The artist was not obligated to sign such an unbalanced contract.
B. Even so, pirates would like to deprive the artist of even that measly 10%....in the name of sticking it to the evil record company, of course.


I swear. Some of you kids these days...you'll say anything (see above) and do anything (look how much effort has been put into hacking PSP, etc.) in order to get games without paying for them.

It makes me sad.

[Mayhem]

Anyway - so tying it all up - what posters are saying is that if I own a copy of SMB/DH I am allowed a ROM of SMB/DH for my own personal backup. Since ROM-readers aren't readily available - in fact Nintendo has done a lot all they can to discourage these legal instruments - I have a third party rip the ROM and provide it to me under the assumption that it's for my personal, legal use (granted, lots of people lie, but that's a whole other thread).

Trouble is, afaik here, that the legal holding of the backup has to be made by yourself from your own copy. So even if you own the game, it is essentially illegal for you to have downloaded a ROM of it and play in an emulator; you have to make it yourself. Of course PROVING that isn't the case is an entirely different kettle of fish :P

How this fits into Big N's plans for old game distribution, I'm not sure yet. I wonder if someone will figure out how to copy the files you download from one SD card to another SD...? Most likely...

[Kuros]

What I think would be reasonable would be to charge 1-2 bucks per game, but lets say if you buy a system or a game, inside will be a code for 2-3 free downloads. Sort of like the 2 month free trials for Xbox Live.

That would be excellent. :D

[emumuumuucowgomoo]

ZZZ...

1. When do you suppose I was born?
2. Nintendo is proposing charging a fee for some (if not all) game downloads.
3. Nintendo is therefore not providing a free rom ripping service.
4. You may or may not be able to legally own back up copies of your games, but that does not equate to Nintendo having to provide you a "back up" rom. That's for the consumer to do the dirty work.
5. "The big media companies, ever greedy for extra profits (last I heard, less than 10% of what you pay for an album goes to the artist who, you know, made the album possible),"

Just wanted to reply to this typical senseless justification of piracy.
A. The artist was not obligated to sign such an unbalanced contract.
B. Even so, pirates would like to deprive the artist of even that measly 10%....in the name of sticking it to the evil record company, of course.


I swear. Some of you kids these days...you'll say anything (see above) and do anything (look how much effort has been put into hacking PSP, etc.) in order to get games without paying for them.

It makes me sad.

1. Well, by re-reading my post, I would assume I figure you're younger than the court case in which this was ruled. I am not beefed up on my legal references the way Mommy beefs you up on Beefaroni, so I cannot cite the actual case, only note that it was probably between 1974-1986. I know for a fact that there was much hoopola in 1985-86 with the PMRC "crusading" during a period in which there was also a "blank media tax" bill going into congress, at the request of the Media Cooporations. So, I'm going to take a gamble here and say you're about 15, 16 max. The way you copy my tone, having not yet found yourself, and immediately latch onto the "EVERY-1'S A KID!!! LOL BETTER SHAPE UP, SON!!" routine leads me to further concur that you're not a particularly bright or well thought 16 year old.

2) Yes. And?

3) YOU'RE KIDDING ME JEEZ LOUISE STOP THE PRESSES!!! ESPECIALLY THOSE THAT ARE DIGITAL! I THOUGHT WWW.POKEMON.COM WAS WWW.POKEROM.COM HOLY FUCK ME TWICE AND CALL ME GRANNY CLAMPETT!

4) True.

5A) Have you ever seen Godfather? Or are you the sort who prefers the buzzwords and catchphrases of Scarface? I'll skip the long analogy (that's why your parents ship you off to SAT tutoring) and cut straight to the chase - if an artist wants to get published, yes, he does. It's called Mob Rule. Just like you can demand $100 a lawn to mow lawns, an artist can demand better royalties. Only then the major labels, which can make pretty much anything sell with the right amount of hype, can just as easily say "nthx we will hire Spritney Beers", just as I can say "get the fuck off my property you snotfaced little retard, my mom will mow the lawn for FREE and the bitch better like it."

It's rather simple economics, the kind of stuff you should be learning in school. Only the teachers are dumbfounded with devoting an entire lesson to the simple "supply + demand = price", and dickbrains like you need it. It's sad but a fact of evolution. And FUCK I promised I wouldn't give you an analogy. I'm sorry. Really and truly I am.


5B) Yep. Can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs, any cook will tell you that. In war, men must be prepared to sacrifice a few innocents to save the greater whole - accept a few casulties to achieve a grander victory. In other words, sure there were probably a few Nazi sympathizers in London when Hitler started bombing the limes out of them, but the majority of the people were opposing Hitler.

[Wavelflack]

I seem to have upset you.

I guess I can wait for you to calm down and try again. Do a little research, and you might end up with some substantive responses to present on the next iteration.

1, 3 and 5A need a complete rework. Being a generous soul, I may even turn a blind eye to the impending "edits" I expect to come. I won't tell!

5B: The "grand victory" you propose is stolen music and games?


:)

[CanX]

Nintendo really should not charge for these games. Maybe everytime you register a new Revolution game over the internet you get a pass to download any game you want. I think that would be the way to go. The games are free, but at a price. :D

[emumuumuucowgomoo]

http://forum.watmm.com/uploads/av-126.gif

I seem to have exhausted you. That's okay, really. Stamina is a skill you pick up later on in life.

I think I've proven my point quite sufficiently, given that this is nothing more than a forum debate, and only a tard would start citing references to try and show a doof like you which end was up.

I'll conclude by saying - it's because of chucklefucks such as yourself, sir, that I don't get too bummed out about the lack of quality healthcare in America.

[mieu_c]

x_x Why don't you two just beat it out of eachother in the backyard. x_x

[sabre2922]

Ill go ahead and state the obvious EMULATION.

Damn whats the big deal ? Im not trying to start another flame war over what the Hell is legal and what isnt (that old argument has been done to death) but as long as you have a computer thats not completely ancient you can play all the NES games you want and thats a fact.

Why would anyone that has the slightest knowledge of how to set up one of the most basic EMU's say Nesten for example or any of the others want to PAY to play what is free on the net ?

If they want all the ppl using EMU's to play and old favorite from time to time to start PAYING for a game like Double Dragon 2 they are going to have to wipe out all the sites offering the ROMS for free.

Yeah flame me if ya want but The revolution playing old games that are readily available all over the net is not going to help sale consoles (REV). ;) and Im betting that not many gamers especially the casual gamers are going to be overly excited about paying to play 15 year old games unless they are incredibly cheap.

How many times do you expect gamers even the hardcore mind you to pay for Super Mario Bros. anyway?

[Wavelflack]

http://forum.watmm.com/uploads/av-126.gif

I seem to have exhausted you. That's okay, really. Stamina is a skill you pick up later on in life.

I think I've proven my point quite sufficiently, given that this is nothing more than a forum debate, and only a tard would start citing references to try and show a doof like you which end was up.

I'll conclude by saying - it's because of chucklefucks such as yourself, sir, that I don't get too bummed out about the lack of quality healthcare in America.

Thanks for playing!
:)

[Fuyukaze]

Myself, I realy dont see why Nintendo should be required to give the d/l for free just because I own a copy of the game on what ever previous system it was released on. Should they give it for free at all? Thats realy a hard question. The biggest problem with re-releasing an old game is that often the company gets acused of trying to milk the game for all its worth. Looking at how Nintendo has released so many of its backlog of games in such a manner, its easy to see why one could believe this. There is the catch though. Making games playable on curent systems from previous systems, even when its a simple patch isnt exactly cheap. If they are simply giving the games away then there is no profit to be had from the re-release of the games. As some of you who have or are curently working in the buisness world know, no profit=closed buisness. No profit means little incentive to make a re-release. If the company never makes a re-release of a game, the only way to own it is to track down the original. Look at games like Kid Icarus and Metroid 2 on the gameboy. Before the GBA re-release for KI, the only way to get this game was to buy the original NES game. There has yet to be a re-release for Metroid 2 though. Guess Nintendo would be considered miling it if they were to re-release it as well? I wouldnt mind. Call me a Nintendo fanboy if you must (I could use a good laugh) but in all truth, I havent cared much for Nintendo sense the end of the SNES. The revolution just doesnt sound real to me right now as what little that has been released about it promises much along the lines of what the Phantom (anyone remember this P.O.S.?, thats right, its still not out!) originaly did when info on it was first revealed. I can only see it being a viable as a freebie with the purchase of a game. Will it be on a 1/1 basis? Maybe. Personaly I think that would be a crapy deal for gamers. Perhaps they will up the ratio. Who realy knows what the final will be? I do know I am waiting to see what the big N will do. Getting all bent out of shape over the question of emulation being legal or illegal is stupid and pointless. Thats not the question being asked here.