Eurogamer has a piece on their site today which talks about the world of emulation and the role it plays amongst gamers. It's a piece that talks about the Internet Arcade and the readiness that old games are available, sometimes whilst the companies the games belong to are still in existence. Its case seems to be that whilst the pursuit to archive and save as many old titles as possible is to be applauded, the wider impact is that it means gamers see older titles as fair game to get hold of for free and that the industry as a whole is damaged as developers and publishers lose out financially in a way that people wouldn't consider to be as acceptable with music or film.
Of course it's an increasingly complicated matter. Long gone is the day of school kids swapping PS1 game copies in the playground or using Dreamcast cheat discs to run CD-R burnt latest releases. We're very close to having a generation where piracy becomes muddied by a lack of emulated hardware such as with the PS3 and 360 as well as a world where even if fully functional emulators existed, a wealth of patches and updates and DLC could be lost to the digital ether. Piracy isn't the free candy shop it once was and this almost fuels supporters arguments that what can be saved by emulation should be saved.
The other point in emulations argument is often that whilst, as per EG's article points out, gaming is skewed to increasingly be considered in line with movies and music it isn't actually the same when the real brass tacks of how it works as an industry come into play. If you want to watch a popular film from the 1950's you can probably go online or in store and at least be likely to be able to buy a DVD of it which then pockets the distributor a bit of money. Same with music where decades of material is readily available. Gaming doesn't work the same way, in some cases it can be hard to get a new copy of a title a mere year after release with only a handful of long term sellers staying on shelves or receiving remastered releases.
The further back you go, the harder it gets. Titles get increasingly hard to source new and even if you do find a copy none of the money goes to the publisher or developer anyway... assuming that both or either still exist. The copyright laws for many titles are a mess and so even the most well intentioned retro gamer would often struggle to get hold of titles outside of the second hand market, a market many companies have displayed their dislike of as it is.
It's here where we come back to the anti-emulation and piracy stance as the line taken can be that on the whole using copied games breeds a culture in gamers, one that carries over to newer titles with an expectation to get more for less. It's here where the damage is done to an industry where it's hard to keep your head above water as it is.
In short, it's an age old question, but in light of newer machines where emulation and piracy is increasingly less of an option for most and most older titles continue to remain unavailable through official means...
Is emulation and piracy an acceptable method of gaming or is it still one of the industries largest threats?
Of course it's an increasingly complicated matter. Long gone is the day of school kids swapping PS1 game copies in the playground or using Dreamcast cheat discs to run CD-R burnt latest releases. We're very close to having a generation where piracy becomes muddied by a lack of emulated hardware such as with the PS3 and 360 as well as a world where even if fully functional emulators existed, a wealth of patches and updates and DLC could be lost to the digital ether. Piracy isn't the free candy shop it once was and this almost fuels supporters arguments that what can be saved by emulation should be saved.
The other point in emulations argument is often that whilst, as per EG's article points out, gaming is skewed to increasingly be considered in line with movies and music it isn't actually the same when the real brass tacks of how it works as an industry come into play. If you want to watch a popular film from the 1950's you can probably go online or in store and at least be likely to be able to buy a DVD of it which then pockets the distributor a bit of money. Same with music where decades of material is readily available. Gaming doesn't work the same way, in some cases it can be hard to get a new copy of a title a mere year after release with only a handful of long term sellers staying on shelves or receiving remastered releases.
The further back you go, the harder it gets. Titles get increasingly hard to source new and even if you do find a copy none of the money goes to the publisher or developer anyway... assuming that both or either still exist. The copyright laws for many titles are a mess and so even the most well intentioned retro gamer would often struggle to get hold of titles outside of the second hand market, a market many companies have displayed their dislike of as it is.
It's here where we come back to the anti-emulation and piracy stance as the line taken can be that on the whole using copied games breeds a culture in gamers, one that carries over to newer titles with an expectation to get more for less. It's here where the damage is done to an industry where it's hard to keep your head above water as it is.
In short, it's an age old question, but in light of newer machines where emulation and piracy is increasingly less of an option for most and most older titles continue to remain unavailable through official means...
Is emulation and piracy an acceptable method of gaming or is it still one of the industries largest threats?
Comment