4 ms·

One fan spent three years saving a Final Fantasy game before it shut down

31 points by cf100clunk 3y ago

jprete 3y ago
That's a lot of effort. I hope Square Enix doesn't give them a problem.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
sandspar 3y ago
For me personally, Final Fantasy is the most "I wish I could live there" property. Perhaps this person feels the same.
bitwize 3y ago
This is a noble effort, but I think it's time we consider video games to be "events" or "experiences" rather than something you can keep forever. The rightsholders to these games do not intend for them to be around forever, and you cannot preserve them without violating copyright.
- Fire-Dragon-DoL 3y ago
  I mean, it was the same for books for a long time, but we kept them around whenever possible, so I have to disagree
- almatabata 3y ago
  > This is a noble effort, but I think it's time we consider video games to be "events" or "experiences" rather than something you can keep forever. People still play very old games in emulators. You can find WoW servers not operated by blizzard. While current copyright law might allow companies to sue them to oblivion I do not see why we should just accept this as the reasonable standard. Maybe it is a sign that we should update copyright law. If the publisher does not want to maintain a game anymore why should fans not be allowed to operate their own servers?
- Sirizarry 3y ago
  Then update the copyright laws? A book itself is an experience but we have no such illusions that they’ll fade away and become inaccessible because of the publishing house, why the change in attitude here?
- RetroTechie 3y ago
  Games are basically: 1) A game engine (code, that usually runs on end-user's device). This can be preserved / run / reverse engineered / re-written / bugfixed etc for all eternity as long as anyone cares. On original hardware or emulators. 2) Data: maps, graphics, sounds, etc. Same as 1) but (mostly) platform independent. 3) Online services like game servers that connect players online, maintain the state of a shared 'world', player stats etc. Games of old don't have 3), so that's just a matter of preserving code & data. Later games have 3) without depending on it. Bonus points if 3) can be provided by 3rd party like players hosting their own game server. For such games, "purchase" means exactly that (or at least it should). Some % of recent games depend on 3) to the point that game becomes worthless if vendor pulls the plug. With no option to have 3rd party run a game server. Such games are better regarded as "online service", and lend themselves more to a subscription model imho. With the understanding that service (and thus, the game) will disappear at some point. Developing a game can cost serious $$. But running server(s)? Easily covered as long as there's a paying userbase. So it's beyond me why a vendor would pull the plug as long as paying userbase exists.
- LocalH 3y ago
  Quite frankly, I don't give a shit what the rights holders want. The fact that they don't "intend" the games to be around forever doesn't mean that preserving them is morally wrong. The basis of copyright is that, once the terms of copyright run out, the work then belongs to the public. Preventing preservation is effectively theft in a way that almost no other copyright infringement can be equated to. Rights holders who impede preservation and steal works from the public should effectively lose the right to hold copyright in the first place. You shouldn't get the protection if you're not willing to ensure you hold up your end of the bargain when it comes time to give it to the public.

31 points by cf100clunk 3y ago

jprete 3y ago

That's a lot of effort. I hope Square Enix doesn't give them a problem.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

sandspar 3y ago

For me personally, Final Fantasy is the most "I wish I could live there" property. Perhaps this person feels the same.

bitwize 3y ago

This is a noble effort, but I think it's time we consider video games to be "events" or "experiences" rather than something you can keep forever. The rightsholders to these games do not intend for them to be around forever, and you cannot preserve them without violating copyright.

Fire-Dragon-DoL 3y ago
I mean, it was the same for books for a long time, but we kept them around whenever possible, so I have to disagree
almatabata 3y ago
> This is a noble effort, but I think it's time we consider video games to be "events" or "experiences" rather than something you can keep forever. People still play very old games in emulators. You can find WoW servers not operated by blizzard. While current copyright law might allow companies to sue them to oblivion I do not see why we should just accept this as the reasonable standard. Maybe it is a sign that we should update copyright law. If the publisher does not want to maintain a game anymore why should fans not be allowed to operate their own servers?
Sirizarry 3y ago
Then update the copyright laws? A book itself is an experience but we have no such illusions that they’ll fade away and become inaccessible because of the publishing house, why the change in attitude here?
RetroTechie 3y ago
Games are basically: 1) A game engine (code, that usually runs on end-user's device). This can be preserved / run / reverse engineered / re-written / bugfixed etc for all eternity as long as anyone cares. On original hardware or emulators. 2) Data: maps, graphics, sounds, etc. Same as 1) but (mostly) platform independent. 3) Online services like game servers that connect players online, maintain the state of a shared 'world', player stats etc. Games of old don't have 3), so that's just a matter of preserving code & data. Later games have 3) without depending on it. Bonus points if 3) can be provided by 3rd party like players hosting their own game server. For such games, "purchase" means exactly that (or at least it should). Some % of recent games depend on 3) to the point that game becomes worthless if vendor pulls the plug. With no option to have 3rd party run a game server. Such games are better regarded as "online service", and lend themselves more to a subscription model imho. With the understanding that service (and thus, the game) will disappear at some point. Developing a game can cost serious $$. But running server(s)? Easily covered as long as there's a paying userbase. So it's beyond me why a vendor would pull the plug as long as paying userbase exists.
LocalH 3y ago
Quite frankly, I don't give a shit what the rights holders want. The fact that they don't "intend" the games to be around forever doesn't mean that preserving them is morally wrong. The basis of copyright is that, once the terms of copyright run out, the work then belongs to the public. Preventing preservation is effectively theft in a way that almost no other copyright infringement can be equated to. Rights holders who impede preservation and steal works from the public should effectively lose the right to hold copyright in the first place. You shouldn't get the protection if you're not willing to ensure you hold up your end of the bargain when it comes time to give it to the public.