3 ms·
It's not mental gymnastics to say that the people who use emulation can be divided into groups who would have and who would not have otherwise paid for a game.
by add-sub-mul-div 2y ago
It's not mental gymnastics to say that the people who use emulation can be divided into groups who would have and who would not have otherwise paid for a game. There is damage done, despite all the people who only use emulation ethically.
Even the people who only pirate games that are no longer for sale could end up withholding money from the industry because their gaming needs are met by the quasi-piracy.
You can disagree with him, but smugly pretending he doesn't have a point is disingenuous.
- trinsic2 2y agoNope sorry. There is no data that supports that. We are mostly talking about emulation to play games that are no longer playable that are considered abandonware. Copyright was meant to be a short limit so an organization or individual can profit and then the work gets put into the public domain. There is no god given right to maximize profits beyond 5 or 10 years a most. The whole 95 year thing is a sham meant to prevent creative works from entering into the public domain.
- senko 2y agoBy the same arguments: People who live can also be divided into groups who would have and who would not have paid for a game. There is damage done, despite all the people who only live ethically. Even the people who do something else (than buying a game that can't be bought) could end up withholding money from the industry because their gaming needs are met by something else. That's not an argument for why "something else" is bad. It's ridiculous.