Poll: Do you believe that games 10 years of age or older should be made free?

[bbad89]

^Pretty self explanatory, I personally do

 

[x434343]

15 years or older, yes.

10 years, no. It'd make Half Life free.

 

[Pielikey]

maybe twenty or twenty five, but just ten? that would mean:

Gran Turismo 3
Grand Theft Auto 3
Pokemon Silver
The first Sims
AND The first Roller Coaster Tycoon

all Free.
And they all make money still

 

[Merkavar]

10 years i think is to short. 15 years might be better. after 15 years they are doubtful to make any more sales. so just put them on the net somewhere for download.

it might actually increase sales. like if fallout 1 is free the sales of fallout new vegas might increase for example.

No.

There is money to be made on older IPs. For examples, look to any remake or re-release. These may be cheap cash-ins for devs, but they do add fuel ($$$) to the company's bottom line so that they can support the high cost of developing new titles.

not sure i get what your saying. are you saying if games are free then they cant make a remake or re-release? what games are an example of a remake or re-release?

 

[Trolldor]

Yes. Ten years is long past the game's 'prime'. In fact, most people won't remember most of the games from ten years ago, just a few exceptionally good or bad ones.

 

[samjc3]

Its up to the developer/owner. If they wanna make it free, by all means. If not, they own it, so whatever.

 

[God's Clown]

They should be like what they do on PSN for PSone classics. 5 to 10 bucks a pop, just they need to add them more frequently, and stuff.

 

[Choppaduel]

no not ten years. 20 years, then its free-ware.

people will still pay money for doom, quake, unreal, fallout, etc etc. not good money, but something.

 

[Sovvolf]

Maybe after about 20 years the game should become free, ten is a little early for me.

Yes. Ten years is long past the game's 'prime'. In fact, most people won't remember most of the games from ten years ago, just a few exceptionally good or bad ones.

I can probably remember plenty of games past 15 years ago, probably some most haven't heard of

 

[DustyDrB]

No. That is, as long as the devs/publishers/whoever is in charge of that sort of thing makes the game readily available. Many older games I think qualify as abandonware, so you don't have "legitimate" options of playing them.

 

[Conza]

Absoloutley, they should do the same with music and books to, and accelerate this especially, if the original person who owns the rights is no longer alive. But, if I was Bob Dylan's grandson or something, I might disagree, so...

 

[Chibz]

No. Only abandonware should be free. For example Ultima 1 & 2. But NOT all games ten years or older.

 

[SteewpidZombie]

I think that after so many years, a game should become free. Just like movies or comics once a videogame is 5 let alone 10 years old, younger generation gamers won't want to pay to play such old games. Even now I doubt I'd go and buy the original Starcraft when there are newer and better games available. I think that after 5-8 years a game should become free. The only people who even make money off old games are places like videostores who have them all heaped into a bargain bin like trash for 5$ a game. Reasonably by making the games free to download (While still just selling physical copies for like $5) it'd allow more people to experience and enjoy the games that we've grown up with. 10 Years from now I doubt I'd even consider tossing in Assassins Creed, Fable, or even Half Life 2, by then I'll be too pre-occupied with the new games and I wouldn't want to bother paying for those old relics. But if they are free downloads and cheap copies, then it's likely that more people would actually go back and play them. Heck, I wouldn't have ever played FF7 again (Last time was when I was like 8-9) unless I had bought it off PSN (Pretty rare for me to even buy games online).


Basically, free/cheap = preserving the games of the past so that future gamers can enjoy them. While, paying money = less likely gamers of the future will want to bother, and less likely that older gamers would want to spend the money on stuff that is considered outdated.

Edit: It should also be noted that the game companies themselves get ZERO dollars from games that are several years old. The companies make money from the purchases by stores and gamers within the first year or two, but after that it basically goes straight to the store. That's why when you trade in a game for $5 they can re-sell at $30, because you've already paid $60 upon release and some of that went to the developers, now you've recieved $5 out of the $40-50 the store is now getting. Hence the reason why some stores will still sell games for $40 when the company is offering the game at $20 on their website for Download or ect.

 

[triggrhappy94]

Not neccesarily. you can get 10 year old games for dirt cheap though

 

[Corven]

I was thinking about this earlier strangely enough, mostly because I wanted to try out System Shock 2, but since I can't find any copies outside of auction sites, I don't feel like paying some random guy my money.

I believe the only time when a game should become free to download is when the publisher and developers wouldn't benefit, in any way shape or form, from my purchase.

 

[Chibz]

Edit: It should also be noted that the game companies themselves get ZERO dollars from games that are several years old.

Uh... Are you aware of Wii Virtual Console along with the (rather vast) selection of oldschool games on PSN and XBLA? All of which get regular updates in the form of games that the publishers then allow to be downloaded for a nominal fee? Nintendo is STILL making money off of Super Mario Bros for the NES, a full quarter-century after release.

Your logic simply doesn't work because it's built on complete (indeliberate) falsehood.

By your logic, almost all these games should be free because nobody makes any money off them anymore anyways...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Virtual_Console_games_%28North_America%29