4 ms·
Publishers Have Said the Quiet Part Out Loud About Retro Games
- bobthepanda 2y agoThe linked GamesRadar article has way more substance than the Forbes article, which says a lot of nothing wrapped around one quote from the GamesRadar article. https://www.gamesradar.com/games/publishers-are-absolutely-terrified-preserved-video-games-would-be-used-for-recreational-purposes-so-the-us-copyright-office-has-struck-down-a-major-effort-for-game-preservation/ https://www.gamesradar.com/games/publishers-are-absolutely-t...
- mathnode 2y agoCould this be linked to instead?
- mock-possum 2y agoWow gamesradar is an ad-infested cesspool But here’s the meaty bit: > That ruling cites the belief of the Entertainment Software Association and other industry lobby groups that "there would be a significant risk that preserved video games would be used for recreational purposes." … this also ignores the fact that libraries already lend out digital versions of more traditional media like books and movies to everyday people for what can only be described as recreational purposes. Exactly. What makes videogames different than books, music, and videos?
- ascagnel_ 2y agoThe terms under which libraries lend out e-content are awful: e-content expires after either a given number of lends, a period of time, or whichever comes sooner, while a well-maintained library book can last for decades, and it tends to be more expensive than its analog counterpart (eg: an e-book for may cost more than its heavy-duty library-style-binding hardcover). That said, the key difference is that book publishers decided to offer e-content under an explicit license, while game publishers have not.
- mock-possum 2y agoYou know what that’s a fair point, I will give that to you. I’d gladly give all my old licenses to NES and SNES games to a gaming library if it meant they could preserve them as digital lending material.
- itronitron 2y agoif they ban recreational use, would I need a prescription for medicinal use?
- JSR_FDED 2y agoThe other bit I found shocking: We’ve had over a decade to prove that AAA games are not viable in a business sense. The budgets and returns are not sustainable. However, to get these massive budgets off the ground, the industry effectively eliminated mid-tier games.
- phatfish 2y agoProbably because Forbes is basically an SEO company now. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41590466 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41590466
- ianburrell 2y agoPost for that: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42259133 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42259133
- dang 2y agoComments moved thither. Thanks!
- CatWChainsaw 2y ago"What with all the layoffs across the games industry to compensate for rampant budgetary overspending in publishing, the reality behind keeping retro games within a paid walled garden is about charging new money for old rope — and controlling the market to force gamers to play new games." Technically, you're not forced. I bought Tears of the Kingdom once and I can play it many, many times, and Nintendo can eat shit if it tries to charge me $70 per playthrough.