Thanks for that. These two commercial emulators work great once you map the keyboard properly:
https://www.c64forever.com/
https://www.amigaforever.com/
The included games in both suck however. You have to get better ROMs from abandonware sites.
Thanks for that. These two commercial emulators work great once you map the keyboard properly:
https://www.c64forever.com/
https://www.amigaforever.com/
The included games in both suck however. You have to get better ROMs from abandonware sites.
Okay. Iâll bite. Iâll be âthat guyâ in this thread. 
From a legal standpoint, emulation is a dicey issue. The basic act of emulation is not itself illegal. Dev systems emulate pre-production hardware all of the time. Thatâs fine. Your emu is part of the devkit.
However, if you;re NOT a 3rd party developer, where emu crosses the line is in how it does the deed. Emulation often involves reverse engineering and, in some cases, BIOS code ripped directly from the original system. The latter act is most certainly illegal. The person or group who ripped that code had no right to do so. So, while it might be legal for you to download a PSX emulator, you would be in the wrong for downloading the BIOS.
Similarly, ripping a cart or DVD/CD to a ROM is - as we all know - copyright infringement. You most certainly cannot download these ROMs. It is no less illegal than obtaining a bootleg copy of Maya.
I have seen a number of ROM downloaders use the excuse, âItâs okay. I own the original game.â Unfortunately, no they do not. They simply own a license to that game. Thatâs whatâs really being bought. The media upon which it is burnt is almost secondary. Unfortunately, most of these games have licenses that expressly forbid backups. If they permit them, however, then itâs usually in the most self-contradictory way possible. IOW, you can back up your DVD, but you canât use it. Stupid. I know. Regardless. Downloading and/or using a ROM of a copyrighted work is illegal. No way around that.
The concept of so-called âabandonwareâ is total BS too. Iâll give you a good example of why.
Letâs suppose that skeebertus here created an awesome piece of art. Excellent work, skeebertus. Great job. skeebertus just sort of forgets about it and goes about his life. He creates, say, 100 new pieces in the five years that follow. skeebertus then sees his work appear as part of some advertisement. Worse than that, he finds out that it has been in use for the past TWO years.
Upon finding out, or even some time after, skeebertus contacts the infringing company and complains. The company then says, âYeah, but we tried to contact you. Your e-mail was changed. You didnât respond. You had two years to complain to us, but didnât. Now you come along? Really? Sorry. Too bad. So sad. Youâre out of luck. Itâs ours now.â Thatâs the abandonware argument in a nutshell. Yeah. No. Thatâs not how it works. 
While it is up to the copyright holder to defend their IP, failure to do so does not result in forfeiture of that legal right. Abandonware effectively argues a âsquatterâs rightsâ type of case. âI moved into this house. I lived there for âxâ number of months. Nobody asked me to get out. I can stay.â It doesnât work that way with copyright.
In the United States of America, any creative work made after 1977 is legally protected for the life of the creator PLUS an additional 70 years after. The law was changed in 1976 and is affectionately known as the âMickey Mouse Protection Actâ because, well, Disney lobbied like crazy to keep this copyright from expiring and entering into the public domain.
Thatâs really the thing. skeebertusâ amazing piece of art here, whether defended or not, was protected. Forgetting about it didnât mean that he left it so that it could enter the public domain. Itâs protected regardless. His death would not lift that copyright either, even if his own life had abandoned his body.
If dying doesnât make a copyrighted work abandonware then simply forgetting about that IP sure as heck doesnât either. Life of the creator + 70 years. Period.
The bottom line here is that it might (or might not) be illegal to download an emulator. Itâs definitely illegal to download the BIOS. It is without a question illegal to download the ROM of any copyright protected game. Just because all of the cool kids are doing it doesnât mean that you should too. LOL 
Having said that, just hunt down an old system and games. It might not be free to do that, but itâs also not illegal. You might have to replace the battery on some of these old cart, but at least itâll be yours to have, hold, and treasure instead of some ISO image from a dodgy torrent site.
For my money, I own practically every system from the past, oh, 40 years. Iâve got a sh**ton of games in my library. Anything I might ROM, were I that sort of person, I already own a copy of. I personally would not feel right doing the EMU thing. To me, as I said, downloading a ROM of a game like âSuper Mario Bros 3â falls into the same category of offense as downloading a copy of Maya 2018. I just wouldnât do it. Itâs illegal.
I appreciate that the community at large wants to preserve gaming history. I truly do. However, not being the legal copyright holders, it is probably not within their legal right to do so. It is ESPECIALLY not within their right to do it using such illegal and infringing means. That right [to protect gaming history] belongs to Nintendo, SEGA, Sony, Ubisoft, and every one of the other countless IP holders out there. If Square-Enix doesnât want my territory to have some rare version of âFinal Fantasy: Mystic Questâ then I canât assume that right and just rip it from an import.
Just imagine if it was YOUR game and somebody in that scene decides to call your work abandonware, ROM it, or otherwise assume legal rights that they donât have and try to enter it into the public domain. Youâd be mega pissed. Next time you want to download a ROM, put the shoe on the other foot. Be a bit empathetic. These devs may not know that the ROM is out there. They may have totally ignored that game in the years since original publication. They still have rights though. They have rights that they could choose to exercise them at any given moment should they decide.
In light of the fact that this stuff has a shelf life on it, after which the original material deteriorates, I absolutely LOVE the idea of preserving gaming history. Let the IP holders do that though. Petition them to take on the challenge.
As a gamer, if you want to preserve gaming history, support every legally available retro system like the NES Classic or SNES classic. Buy or re-buy those forgotten classics once they enter into the E-Shop. Youâll be sending the message that you want more of this sort of thing. Like I always say, vote with your wallet. As a consumer, thatâs your super power. Money.
Thereâs anther C64 emulator out there. This one is more in the spirit of the NES Classic and is hardware-based: The C64 Miniï»ż
Again, as such things go, itâs kinda dodgy. They openly acknowledge that the games are copyright of the original creators, but no mention is made of licensing. In all likelihood, the original creators arenât seeing a dime. Sad. More dodgy is the fact that they tell you how to load your own games to the system. Cool, but sketchy. (Canât say that Iâm a huge fan of more than 6 or 7 of the included games either.)
As much as Iâd like to play with âGarry Kitchenâs Game Makerâ without digging out my old C64, this is not how Iâd want to do it. If this is the sort of thing that float your boat, more power to you. Not out in the USA yet though. Amazon, EB Games, & GameStop already sell it overseas, but I imagine that theyâre looking to overcome the legal hurdles North America.
The game industry you are defending does not give a damn about the fundamental legal, intellectual, electronic and consumer rights of gamers - look at the 60 to 100 Dollar horseshit being sold as AAA games since around 2010.
Examples:
To summarize: I do not care what the game industry thinks its rights are. Because my rights and expectations are trampled by this 3rd rate industry every time I legally buy a game.
Iâm not going to presume to know what you do for a living, skeebertus. However, given the nature of this forum, if you are a creative type then itâs more than a little hypocritical to trash the very system thatâs designed to protect you too.
Youâre more or less saying, âF*** them. They deserve what they get.â If you were on the other side of the equation then youâd be pissed off that some gamers with a feeling of entitlement and an over inflated sense of self-importance are unjustly enriching themselves by freely taking what you spent months or years working so hard to eventually charge for. Imagine spending ages making cookies for a bake sale only to have some jackwad with the munchies steal your platter just because you charged $2 instead of $1.50, the price they thought it should be. If you canât empathize with that poor baker then youâre in the wrong field.
Honestly, itâs that bullsh** sort of argument that has led to a whole host of problems in the industry. An emphasis on DLC and micro-transactions. Crippling DRM. Episodic gaming. ETC and so on. Thieving gamers have ironically become the cause for the very problems theyâre complaining about.
Just to address your issuesâŠ
I buy a boxed copy of a game in a store for 60 to 80 Dollars but get only 1 install DVD where there should be 4 or 5
Understand the logic behind that.
If certain companies were to have their way, that would only be the beginning. Weâd all eventually stream instead. I donât that itâd get to that point any time soon, but I do think that physical copies are on their way out. Weâve already seen it happen with content creation software.
Ten years ago, all of my key apps at the time came on CD or DVD in these big boxes with equally large printed manuals. Today, every content creation app I use has been delivered to me in the form of a download. Just an e-mail with a link to an installer, some support content, and maybe a few PDFs. Itâs been that way for a bunch of years now. How could I be shocked that itâd filter down to the consumed content. level?
Retailers used to respect release dates and copyrights. Now theyâre the ones leaking games early and making the bootlegs. Selling only the installation DVD puts a necessary kink in the system and gives pirates one more thing to have to work around.
Itâs a cost saving measure. Physical copies cost money. Depending on how theyâre packaged and whatâs inside, they can cost a LOT of money. Mandating downloads shifts a portion of that cost to consumers and their ISPs. Thatâs especially important to mention now that we live in a world of HD and 4K.
In many cases, they let companies like Steam worry about distribution instead of maintaining countless download servers themselves. Keeping costs down on their end Lets them put out games at more affordable price points. Sucks as a gamer, but itâs smart business if youâre a developer.
FTR, youâre complaining about $60-$80 price points, but youâre not being entirely reasonable. Games havenât actually kept up with inflation. Iâll give you a good example. Take Golden Axe II from 1993. That Genesis game sold for $52. On the surface, that sounds cheaper. Tack on inflation and that game would sell for $90 today. Thatâs still well below the $60-$70 that most games retail for these days.
Golden Axe II wasnât even the most expensive game of that era either. Back in 1993, Phantasy Star III retailed for $62. Thatâs just under $110 in 2018 money. Complain all you want about $60-$80. However, as a general case, games are actually LESS expensive these days. The only thing that a season pass tends to do is bring the cost up to what it would be if game prices had kept up with inflation.
I pay 60 Dollars for a PC game and get a piss-poor port from console with dumbed down gameplay and simplified controls aimed at consoles. Not acceptable.
I donât know what to tell you. If you want more complex games then you either have to vote with your wallet, opting not to buy console influenced games, or just go out and make the game you want to play.
Donât buy games like that if you object to them. You, and others like you, only have yourselves to blame when developers churn more of them out. Theyâll only make it if you keep on buying it. You just about forfeit your right to complain when you do. At the very least, you undermine you argument when you still insist on buying into the very system you hate.
The 80s and 90s saw a ton of SF2 and Mario clones. Gamers ate them up at first. Developers made more and more of them. Gamers grew tired and stopped buying them. Developers moved on to greener pastures. The bubble burst because gamers popped it. The same thing will soon happen with pixel games, metroidvania games, and Minecraft clones.
Your money matters. Thatâs the bottom line. Thatâs what developers care about most. Deprive them of that cash if youâre so pissed off.
I buy a game the day it is released, and it hasnât been playtested and is buggy as hell. Not acceptable.
First off, thatâs nothing new. Even games back in the NES and SNES days got released in various states of (in)stability. Open up any number of copies of the same cart-based game and you might see a different rev number on the board or chips. Old school games got patched all of the time. It was less of a complaint back then because there was no internet.
The number of bugs was often fewer because consoles are closed systems. PCs, on the other hand, come in an endless variety of hardware and software configurations. That only compounds the problem. Developers cannot possibly test for every combination of hardware and software. It just isnât possible. Even the most thoroughly tested game will ship with issues.
Second, if games seem to be released in an unfinished state then we kind of have ourselves as gamers to blame. Iâm not letting the devs off of the hook. Donât get me wrong. However, as gamers, we force these developers to adhere to arbitrary release dates or sale windows.
We want games that are super deep and complex, but insist that the developers make them in the same 18-24 month time frame. Itâs super unreasonable. Sadly, too many developers choose not to release a game âwhen itâs ready,â instead opting to release within that limited window. Throwing more programmers and artists at the problem doesnât always fix things either.
Our ânow now nowâ hive mentality has created a situation where publishers feel pressured to release now with the full knowledge that theyâll patch later. Shame on them for doing that, but also shame on us for not being more patient.
Game content that should be in the main game is sold to me for extra money as DLC content. Not acceptable.
Again, I refer you to my point on inflation. Phantasy Star 3 retailed for $62 back in 1993, That game would sell for almost $110 today.
Now letâs look at a game like Far Cry 5. That standard edition of the game only retails for $60, which is cheaper than what Phantasy Star 3 would have cost both then - in 1993 - and now in 2018. Letâs assume that you feel compelled to have the most complete Far Cry 5 experience. You skip over the Deluxe Edition and go GOLD. OOOOOH!!! Youâre now paying $90. Thatâs still nearly $20 cheaper than the inflation adjusted cost of a pricey 1993 game.
Unless weâre heading into Capcom or Namco levels of suckery, most games are still cheaper today than yesterday⊠even with DLC or season passes in the mix. Always take inflation into consideration.
Every game I buy is either tied to Steam, UPlay or Origin. I cannot untether my games from these services ever, nor move games from one service to another. Not acceptable.
Not every gameâs like that though. Some games sell through services like GOG, which donât screw you in the same way as UPlay or Origin. Of course, thatâs not the norm. DRM is par for the course because piracy has become so easy.
Even so, back in the day, publishers would screw over gamers and protect games via code wheels, entry of keywords from the manuals, or mandating that the disc be in the system to play - even when fully installed. DRM stinks, but itâs just the latest form of anti-piracy measures.
Having said that, not all publishers or developers are keen on DRM either. The team behind the upcoming Cyberpunk 2077 are as anti-DRM as gamers. They seem to have indicated as much in this most recent E3 event. Whether or not they keep to their word upon release is another issue. However, have faith that not every developer assumes that the gamer is an aspiring pirate.
Even if DRM measures like UPlay were to disappear, anti-piracy measures in general wonât. Developers will just get more creative. Remember the gun that fired only chickens for gamers who ran bootleg copies?
Almost all of the companies making games lie horribly about the size of the production budget. âX game cost 65 Million Dollars to make bla bla blaâ. Except that when you buy the game, you see about 15 to 25 Million Dollars worth of content max.
I agree. Game budgets are WAY out of control, a trend that started with Wing Commander 4 way back when. Again, understand whatâs going on here though. Youâre getting $20mil of content, but the developers are working from a $60mil budget. Why?
Look at some of those bts documentaries. A lot of developers are squandering their budgets on âresearchâ - which usually involves trips, oddball purchases, and so on. Stuff that ultimately doesnât create more content. PLUS,. just because you see only $20mil of content doesnât necessarily mean that the $60mil budget is getting wasted. As with movies, a good portion of budget goes toward marketing. Getting that hype machine going isnât free. On top of that, how many modern games use celebrity talent for voice overs or likenesses? That doesnât come cheap either, even when the celebs opt to work for peanuts.
That budget money IS going somewhere. It just isnât always in the exact somewhere you want it to go.
IMO, developers should work with more restrictions. Smaller budgets might make productions less grand, but it would also force more devs to be more creative and cost conscious. Limitations sometimes force devs to do more with less. Unlimited resources can often be a very bad thing. Youâre 100% right.
Almost all major games use the exact same game mechanics in 2018. Zero creativity, risk taking or innovation. Not acceptable.
REALLY!?!? Thatâs your complaint. How about the fact that most games are still using the same mechanics as games made in 1998?
Hell, depending on the genre and franchise, some games are using the same mechanics today in 2018 that games were using back in 1985.
All of that aside, gameplay has gotten stale because safe sells. Innovation is risky. Why dump $60mil into a maybe when you can just dump that same cash into a whored up clone of yesterdayâs big hit? Get what Iâm saying? If that $60mil innovative and groundbreaking risk doesnât sell well then lots of people are out of a job. Churn yet another roster swapped NBA or PGA game instead and everybody keeps working for another day. Is it fair to gamers? HELL NO! Can you see why they do it? Sure.
Again, itâs easy to complain about this stuff. Voting with your wallet is where you get the chance to be heard. More people need to do that. Be the change or stop complaining. (Not saying that you canât or shouldnât complain either way. You just lose a leg to stand on in your argument if you donât speak with your wallet first.)
Many game reviews rate games much higher than they should be rated.
Iâm kinda torn on this one.
Iâve written product reviews before. I understand that these things have to be written a certain way. You canât always write from the perspective of a hardcore fan or longtime user. Speaking to the wider audience sometimes leads to more forgiving reviews. On the flip side, I abhor reviews that gush. I hate it when reviewers look like theyâre sucking up to the developers. It makes you wonder if these reviewers have been bought off, which happens sometimes.
Again, youâre right. It doesnât always happen. It usually doesnât. Sometimes it does. Movie have the same problem, which is why Rotten Tomatoes has become such a thorn in the side of movie makers. Too many bought and paid for reviews. Hell. Even with safeguards, Amazon has that problem too.
Ideally a good reviewer is one who tries to be objective and examine the product from multiple angles.
As far as your view of Far Cry 5 goes, itâs all subjective.
Lots of people loved the Telltale Batman game. I thought that it was total crap. Too buggy. Too linear. Choices, including button presses, usually didnât matter. Puzzles designed for 5 year olds. It was basically an overpriced âChoose Your Own Adventureâ book. It was a long way off from traditional clicky adventure games like Sam & Max and massive departure from Telltaleâs own Back to the Future. Again, lots of reviewers (and gamers) loved that Batman game. I hated it. To each his own, I say. Similarly people hated Deus Ex Invisible War, but loved Mankind Divided. The opposite was true for me. Hated MD. Loved IW.
What you love or hate is a personal thing. As a gamer/consumer, take reviews with a grain of salt. They are what they are. A review is only one personâs opinion. It is by no means the final word. Only you can say for sure what you like.
I donât know enough about the games industry to corroborate what skeebertus said, I can just say that I donât PLAY any modern games, because theyâre all shooting games 
So Iâm not sure exactly what youâre looking for, but there are no shortage of excellent new games in genres other than shooters.
Like platformers? Check out Ori or Cuphead.
Citybuilders? Skyline or Frostpunk.
Turn-based strategy? XCOM and Civilization series are still going strong.
And so on. Thereâs more variety of games now than at any point in history; youâre just not hearing about some of the more obscure genres because they donât have multi-million dollar marketing budgets.
I share Skeebertus sentiments - fuck what gaming companies think. Activision are one company that I would love to see get a hard and bloody nose. They are utter c**ts.
I do play modern games. Supply drops/loot crates and Season Passes are a fucking disgrace. The consumer is not protected from these âpay up front, wait and seeâ scams. Currently Black Ops 4 is pissing off gamers, and that is before it is even released.
Until players can start getting better protection against these borderline gambling practices, plus full refunds when a game proves to be with problems, then as far as I am concerned, gamers should treat these companies with the same contempt as they are treated.
Iâm pretty old
, so most of my emulator playing is for the C64.
Also lol at the primitive digital speech in some of these, but it was amazing at the time.
Thanks, Meloncov, I might check them out sometime
(Iâm not sure what Iâm looking for either
)
âŠand how DOES one get to hear about the more obscure games?
Like, where did YOU? 
@iamhereintheworld: Online game stores, usually on the device you play games on. I peruse PSN from my PS4, Nintendo Game Store from my Switch, or Steam from my PC. They always have a writeup, trailers, and reviews from other buyers. Iâve discovered several games I wouldnât have heard of otherwise just by checking out what looks cool to me and then checking outside reviews e.g. metacritic etc. Also perusing game news/review sites like IGN.com. I like shooters but I never really play themâŠthereâs a lot more than shooters out there.
@cookepuss: In this day and age of accessibility, âdonât use things you donât ownâ will be a tough sell. Its not my intention to âencourageâ it but as far as preventing others, good luck. Itâs like being a vegan lol. Do your thing, but preaching might be a waste of time. Roms are easy, fun, nostalgic, with little obvious downside, and not much preventing it, so people will do it. No to mention, many game devs no longer exist and there is no other way to play those games if it were not for emu/roms. The industry needs to find a way to handle it. As an example, record labels tried suing Napster and users but streaming services like Spotify have probably done more to curb music piracy than litigation and intimidation. If Nintendo charged a low monthly rate for their entire back catalog of old games instead of charging 5 bucks AGAIN to play gen 1 NES games AGAIN that could make using roms more hassle than itâs worth for many. A video game companyâs primary reason for being is to make money, so they should adopt a model where they arenât losing out on old IPs. Clearly there is a market. I see your points and they are valid, I just think a lecture isnât going to be very effective. Do you not have MP3s or any other un-purchased retail media at all? If not, if you are fully clean, then hey, more power to you.
@skeebertus: ^ That said, I also canât agree with your justification for using roms, especially by bashing the companies that make them. Your anger/annoyance with them may be deserved but dissatisfaction doesnât give anyone the ârightâ to use their IP. If you download a Super Mario Bros rom, Itâs stolen, period. That point canât really be debated, can it? The question is not whether emulators are legal (in most cases its either plainly not or its a grey area). The question is just whether you care to let that stop you because itâs so easy and not really enforced. You donât really have a legitimate moral or legal defense. It is what it is. IMO its more about ease and value. I have my fair share of illegally obtained MP3s. I was under no illusions that I had the ârightâ to use them or some other justification to theft. I now use Spotify or Youtube 100% of the time because its easier. I have purchased many retrogame bundles and re-releases but i still use roms. Sony has PSNow, I hope Nintendo follows suit in the fall with their online service.
While I get that the BIOS code etc. is covered under copyright, I do not get the comparison to an image created by an artist. Iâm not going to try to argue this from a legal perspective, because the law is what it is whether I or anyone agrees with it or not.
An image created by an artist is like a game in that it is a unique finished work. It is hard to defend the theft of a creative work in the example given. The BIOS code is also a unique finished work. But does it deserve the same protection? Without the corresponding hardware (real or virtual) and software to run on said hardware, it is little more than a curiosity. It is more like a tool than a creative work, its logic determined by necessary functionality and its creator having long been compensated. Nintendo arenât going to start making their old systems, they are going to emulate them. That so little attention has been paid to the emulators themselves, compared to the ROMs, tells me that even the legal owners of this code tend see little intrinsic value in it.
It would be nice if we could all afford every retro system we would enjoy playing, and if there were enough of each make and model to satisfy that demand. These machines are increasingly rare and they will not work forever. The idea that itâs more important to respect the copyright of a single BIOS at the expense of preserving dozens or hundreds of created works is where I have the biggest objection to the notion of simply adhering to the law here.
Just to quote what US Copyright law says on this topicâŠ
âCopyright, a form of intellectual property law, protects original works of authorship including literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works, such as poetry, novels, movies, songs, computer software, and architecture.â
I think that the key words here are âoriginal works of authorship.â Nothing there specifically limits it to artistic works. It just has to be intellectual property. A good example of a protected non-creative work might be an autobiography. That is itself not creative either. However, due to the fact that it is a so-called âoriginal authored work,â itâs protected. The copyright in this case likely applies to the specific depiction of the events, but not the events themselves.
BIOS code isnât creative. Youâre right. Itâs just a lot of 1s and 0s. However, whatâs being protected, as with the autobiography, is this very specific expression of those 1s and 0s.
When you look at it, copyright law is basically acting as an extension of the First Amendment. That simply states:
âCongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.â
As you can see, nothing about the First Amendment speaks to the right to artistic expression or create intellectual works. However, the courts have interpreted it to cover those things too. They probably felt that not protecting that sort of thing might lead to banning, burning, or the overall policing of ideas.
Copyright law basically says, âWe understand that you have an idea.The constitution understands that you have the right to that idea. Now weâre going to ensure that nobody tramples over your right control the method and scope of the dissemination of that idea.â If the First Ammendment provides you with the right, copyright law looks to protect it. Itâs a safeguard of sorts.
BIOS code is protected because itâs the original and specific expression of an idea. As interpreted by courts, the expression of an idea a right, not a privilege.
Makes sense?
Nintendo arenât going to start making their old systems, they are going to emulate them.
And thatâs where it gets tricky.
Letâs say that Nintendo comes up with a NES emulator and so do I. We each tackle the problem differently, but achieve the same results. Nintendoâs version of the emulator is protected. That is an original work of authorship. It is the specific expression of an idea. In making the NES emulator, I may have the same idea that Nintendo did. However, in doing it MY way, Iâve expressed that same idea in a different manner. IP law would protect my unique expression of the idea even if the idea itself wasnât unique.
Hereâs where it gets dicey. My emulator is harmeless. I can run original ROMs that I created on it without pissing people off. My emulator may do everything exactly as I perceive Nintendoâs system did it, but theres no telling whether or not it actually runs legit code.
This is the thing. Where it gets messy is when I want to use that potentially harmless emulator on a ripped game. For argumentâs sake, letâs say Mario Bros. In ripping Mario Bros, Iâve decided that my desire to have the game code supercedes Nintendoâs own right to control the scope and method of its dissemination.
Being that Mario Bros is an original work of authorship, Nintendo (as the author) legally controls how or even if the game ever sees light of day. I canât replace their judgment with my own simply because I feel like it.
That so little attention has been paid to the emulators themselves,
Actually, a fair amount of attention is often paid to 3rd party emulators. Thereâs always the question of whether or not invasive reverse engineering was involved.
The idea that itâs more important to respect the copyright of a single BIOS at the expense of preserving dozens or hundreds of created works is where I have the biggest objection to the notion of simply adhering to the law here.
The needs of the one versus the needs of the many? Is that REALLY the argument you want to use? Thatâs the same faulty logic behind eminent domain. While thereâs certainly some merit to what you say, voiding the rights of one to protect the rights of many practically undermines the system itself.
Thereâs such a thing as fair and equal treatment under the law. Either everybodyâs protected by these laws or nobody is. George Carlin did a funny bit on this years ago. If you have a right then nobody can take it from you. The moment somebody can, however, itâs no longer a right. It is simply a temporary privilege.
As that applies to IP, if I do indeed have rights to my original work of authorship, nobody should be able to summarily strip me of it no matter the reason. The moment they do, it becomes patently clear that I never had that right to begin with. It was an illusion. It was, as Carlin might put it, a âtemporary privilege.â
Moving back to the issue of games and BIOS⊠Saying protecting that games is more important than the BIOS is hypocritical. The BIOS should matter as much. In the eyes of the law, they both matter as much. Period. Who am I to say otherwise? The moment I choose to violate the protections afforded to the BIOS creator, Iâve decided that such protections simply donât matter. Some like minded schmuck can come along and violate my IP rights using similar logic because, well, why not?
âBut, officer. You donât understand. That 55mph speed limit didnât apply to me because I was REALLY in a hurry. Other people werenât in as much of a hurry so it applied to them though.â
You really canât pick and choose when to obey the law like that, which is why self-defense or defense of others is a tricky move for an attorney in a murder case. The extenuating circumstances must be pretty extreme.
Iâm not arguing that games shouldnât be protected. Iâm just saying that we should be careful how we do it. You canât simply say that âxâ personâs rights matter less because the desires of âyâ group matter more. Thatâs long been the justification for all sorts of persecution throughout history.
Iâm also not saying that there arenât unjust laws. There are. The current version of copyright may well be one such unjust law. However, until such time as it is overturned or amended, this is the law we have. Love it or hate it. Donât like the law? Lobby to get it changed. Donât want to put in that work? How can you complain?
Iâve bought the same game many times over. So what? Again, weâre not buying these games. Weâre only buying a license to play them. Should Nintendo do as you say? Sure. Thatâd be nice. They donât though. If I really like the game and wish to experience it again on a platform thatâs not outdated, yeah, Iâll pay for that license again. Seems only fair to me. My old license covered the old platform, not the new one. At least I know what Iâm paying for. Only Nintendo can own Mario Bros. Iâm just buying a limited right to play it.
I just think a lecture isnât going to be very effective.
To a mob? No. It wonât be. However, maybe thereâs one person in the crowd who gets it and agrees. Maybe thereâs that one person who can have sense talked into them. Itâs insanity, tbh. What artist wouldnât want to have their rights protected? Arguing that your rights matter, but the other guyâs donât is crazy. Just because I think that âxâ car should cost $5 instead of $50k doesnât mean that I should then decide that itâs okay to take it and drop a $5 bill at the scene. Iâm not the one calling the shots.
By the same token, Nintendo has rights to their games. They have the right to control distribution. They have the right to market and sell them. They have the right to control the imagery. Those are legal rights. I canât suddenly decide that my desires matter more than those rights. Why? Just because? I much have a massive ego to assume that Iâm the center of the world then. 
Do you not have MP3s or any other un-purchased retail media at all? If not, if you are fully clean, then hey, more power to you.
The MP3s that I own are the ones Iâve bought legal licenses to. I have spent an ungodly amount of money on such things over the years. Iâve also got a lot of albums and singles NOT on MP3 simply because theyâre not available in that format. Could I rip and convert them? Sure. I could even break out the old vinyls and rip those too. Such devices exist. I donât though. Not my legal right.
Same logic to software. Canât afford it? Canât have it. Period. Thatâs my rule. Iâll do without. Iâll use open source. Iâll scrimp for an expensive app if I really want it. I wonât warez though. Not just about morality. Itâs about legality. Itâs about fairness, to myself, the developers, and the industry at large.
(More than a few cops, lawyers, & military types in my family. The law is a big thing `round these parts. LOL)
Not gonna lie⊠I miss the days of a nicely boxed game without needing to pay a premium (limited edition) price to get a printed map, sexy looking printed manual and install discs that arenât tied to UPlay, Steam, Origin, whatever⊠and LAN multiplayer without needing internet
Forget printed maps. Ever buy any of the Ultima games when they came out? IIRC, they shipped with cloth maps. Those were the best.
As far as manuals go, I especially miss them for software. I remember when I bought Cinema 4D R9 some 14 years ago. The damn box weighed a good 12 pounds and most of that was manual. The program didnât just come on sleeved CDs. It actually came in this nice, soft zip up CD folio. There was this real attention to quality.
Flash ahead to R11 just 4 years later. The box was easily maybe 2 or 3 pounds total. Maybe only a quick start guide and the discs in paper sleeves. If youâre the type, like me, who keeps that old stuff for nostalgiaâs sake, it was a real disappointment.
Yeah. I miss boxed games that had tons of goodies and nifty printed manuals. I remember when Final Fantasy Legend 2 came out on the Gameboy back in 1990. That game not only shipped with a full color 2-sided printed map. It also shipped with a fickinâ 80 page manual full of concept art and a partial walkthrough. One of my favorite boxed copies from way back when.
How many of you remember buying 100% brand new games that were shipped in ziplock bags? If you do⊠Congrats. Youâre old.

Indeed games today are rather services than a hard copy, a thing that you own and can tackle.
Though gaming is fun, I also feel it derails you from a real life. And though many activities are also debatably fruitful or have any sense, hard-core gaming is something I would call obsession wih a road, leading nowhere.
Yesterday I played CS 1.6. Itâs so outdated now. I also dislike the feeing of being one of the oldest in any team.
I mainly watch reminiscent videos on youtube, as itâs not as time-consuming, but enough to evoke memories.
Itâs so striking how deep are my emotions tied to games, and any game is mintly intact to what it was when I played. Every pixel is on its place where it once was put, not aging a hair. And some game heroes still live their eternal lives in another virtual world.
Maybe thatâs what we love in retro gaming. It gives us a sense of eternity, a cozy familliar environment, whereas new games imply our age and fast-changing world.
It strange, bizzare feeling that some games gave me feeling of another realm. When I watch old games on youtube, I submerge into what I would describe as past life, which ineed never happened. Itâs tricking our mind so well, or our mind is so adaptive to any realm.