3 ms·

> preservation & the ability to actually play a 25 year old game is more important than its capitalization > Even if you don't want to pirate it, there are lot

> preservation & the ability to actually play a 25 year old game is more important than its capitalization > Even if you don't want to pirate it, there are lots of copies for multiple platforms available to buy just on eBay. This feels like a contradictory position. On the one hand the important thing is the preservation and availability of a work. On the other hand it's okay if the it is only available as 20+ year old used copies and pirated copies. And any preservation or restoration project is under the shadow of 3 companies (Warner Bros., Activision, and 20th Century Fox) which have all recently "complained that they may have rights to [NOLF] and may sue over it"

stavros 11mo ago
That a company should be able to profit from something they made 20 years ago (and didn't touch since) feels wrong.
- wiseowise 11mo ago
  I don’t think they’re even profiting from it anymore. This is just grifting at this point. “We made it, you’ve enjoyed it and now fuck off”
  - autoexec 11mo ago
    They like it when old games are unplayable because if gamers can't find or play the old games they'll have to pay (and pay more) for their newest games. Why compete with your own back catalog? Especially when your old game isn't full of bullshit like day one DLC, lootboxes, season passes, and microtransactions.
    - johnebgd 11mo ago
      My first reaction to the steam machine was “you’ll own nothing and be happy about it” but yeah everyone seems happy about it… I like how old games were sold on physical cartridges or discs. Much more fun to know the experience can be relived. Kids growing up today will never have nostalgic experiences in their middle aged years since so many games are internet linked and drm locked.
wiseowise 11mo ago
> On the one hand the important thing is the preservation and availability of a work. On the other hand it's okay if the it is only available as 20+ year old used copies and pirated copies. And any preservation or restoration project is under the shadow of 3 companies (Warner Bros., Activision, and 20th Century Fox) which have all recently "complained that they may have rights to [NOLF] and may sue over it" No, it’s not. Warner, Activision and 20th Century can collectively suck my balls and lick deez nuts. Literally no one benefits from this.

stavros 11mo ago

That a company should be able to profit from something they made 20 years ago (and didn't touch since) feels wrong.

wiseowise 11mo ago
I don’t think they’re even profiting from it anymore. This is just grifting at this point. “We made it, you’ve enjoyed it and now fuck off”
- autoexec 11mo ago
  They like it when old games are unplayable because if gamers can't find or play the old games they'll have to pay (and pay more) for their newest games. Why compete with your own back catalog? Especially when your old game isn't full of bullshit like day one DLC, lootboxes, season passes, and microtransactions.
  - johnebgd 11mo ago
    My first reaction to the steam machine was “you’ll own nothing and be happy about it” but yeah everyone seems happy about it… I like how old games were sold on physical cartridges or discs. Much more fun to know the experience can be relived. Kids growing up today will never have nostalgic experiences in their middle aged years since so many games are internet linked and drm locked.

wiseowise 11mo ago

> On the one hand the important thing is the preservation and availability of a work. On the other hand it's okay if the it is only available as 20+ year old used copies and pirated copies. And any preservation or restoration project is under the shadow of 3 companies (Warner Bros., Activision, and 20th Century Fox) which have all recently "complained that they may have rights to [NOLF] and may sue over it" No, it’s not. Warner, Activision and 20th Century can collectively suck my balls and lick deez nuts. Literally no one benefits from this.