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

[EzraPound]

^Pretty self explanatory, I personally do

Not disagreeing, but doesn't this pretty much happen anyway? Most games over ten years old are fairly difficult to find at retail, sans maybe a handful of carts at a local game store or the StarCraft Battle Chest. So really, most people just download them.

In my opinion, what's dubious is when developers fail to make games available in any capacity but nonetheless actively maintain and enforce their copyrights. Admittedly, the ease of selling games over VC/XBLA has limited these activities, but it still happens fairly frequently with PC games, as well as with consoles that haven't been thoroughly commercially emulated--Dreamcast, N64, etc (I recall getting a seize and desist from Capcom USA for downloading Dreamcast games in 2007 or so--I live in Canada, mind you--and this was before they'd brought DC games to PSN/XBLA). Anyway, it's behaviour reminiscent of absentee landowning, and who really wants to pay fifty bucks over eBay for a copy of System Shock 2?

It's hard to imagination a situation in which developers volunteered to surrender all of their copyrights over ten years old, but it would be nice if the practice of releasing freeware as a means of promoting new releases became more institutionalized. Part of the problem with this is that XBLA, VC, Steam, and PSN have all marketized older games so heavily that releasing, say, Blood over XBLA for free could be seen by other developers as déclassé, since it would be providing a free title that would be in competition with ones for sale.

So, basically there was a window of time in which it was possible that older games would've commonly become freeware--after the 16-bit generation, but prior to the Steam/VC/XBLA/PSN era--but it's been firmly closed. But did you really expect the game industry to do something altruistic?

 

[Plucky]

Probally depends really, if it can only be played by an emulator thats a real life system, probally shouldn't be downloaded since theres always the offchance it might be released on a service like the Nintendo Store or the PSN market.

If it was for PC games who'se developers died out, the game not being in any other developers hands and doesnt have a physical item that has to be inserted into the computer to play then maybe, remember Code Wheels?

Inb4ninja'd

Besides, Steam could make a killing if both Dungeon Keepers was on their store, id buy them in a heartbeat.


EDIT: In other note, Rockstar has GTA 1, 2 and Wild Metal as free downloads, though im unsure of the conditions...but them needing information is a bit strange, probally should be weary. http://www.rockstargames.com/classics/

 

[Biosophilogical]

I'd say it'd depend on availability and where the money goes. So first pre-requisite is if the game is almost unattainable, the second is, if it isn't entirely unnattainable, does the very few instances of opportunity give money to the developers? So, if it is a GBA/GBC game, and no-one is selling it except some game store three hours away or a guy on eBay/Amazon, and neither option is reasonable or gives money to the developer, then what reason is there not to download a rom or whatever? The only reason would be people getting hyper-possessive, despite that it doesn't actually harm anyone.

So I'm going to say you're a communist, but as a good thing.

 

[Jazoni89]

I'd say it'd depend on availability and where the money goes. So first pre-requisite is if the game is almost unattainable, the second is, if it isn't entirely unnattainable, does the very few instances of opportunity give money to the developers? So, if it is a GBA/GBC game, and no-one is selling it except some game store three hours away or a guy on eBay/Amazon, and neither option is reasonable or gives money to the developer, then what reason is there not to download a rom or whatever? The only reason would be people getting hyper-possessive, despite that it doesn't actually harm anyone.

So I'm going to say you're a communist, but as a good thing.

I agree especially for Arcade roms and MAME.

If it wasn't for emulators, some of those games would be lost forever.

Everyone says harr...harr emulators are bad, when their is some good to be had with them.

A magazine i own (Retro Gamer) even condones people using emulators and roms to play old games, they even bundled roms and emulators with their early issues.

If a magazine can do that, then the whole legal stance on it is non existent.

 

[Michael Logan]

I agree! But why stop with games, everything that is older than 10 years should be free, books, music, movies, cars and food!

 

[MrGalactus]

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

....Sounds pretty good to me!
Hell, I'd like it, but 10 years is not really long enough I don't think. Stuff doesn't ever get free, anyway. Not being a cynic, just saying.

 

[LiudvikasT]

Yes, every creative property needs to be released to public domain. 10 years is enough, we don't need copyright holders to hold their copyrights forever.

 

[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

....Sounds pretty good to me!
Hell, I'd like it, but 10 years is not really long enough I don't think. Stuff doesn't ever get free, anyway. Not being a cynic, just saying.

I didn't say it would be bad, that would be awesome... mostly because I miss my copy of Roller Coaster Tycoon

 

[silver wolf009]

No. That would completely negate the expenses for incredibly rare old titles. I plan to make quite a bit of money off my old relics.

 

[GiantRaven]

No. Is music made over 10 years old free? What about films? Books? What makes games special?

Besides, Steam could make a killing if both Dungeon Keepers was on their store, id buy them in a heartbeat.

I'd rather gog.com had them, as well Theme Hospital, Theme Park and the Populous games. Then I could actually buy them (and by god do I want to buy them).

 

[linwolf]

No, but maybe ten years after the last commercial release.

 

[Hap2]

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

BS. I work in a shop that does nothing but clean, repair and sell vintage games and systems. Everything from Atari 2600, NES, SNES, Genesis, N64, etc. to the newer system's games like the PS3 and Xbox 360. People are still more than willing to pay to play older games, and we get plenty of younger folks coming in to buy and play many of the classics for the first time (NES is still a huge seller). There is a difference in the actual experience of nostalgia of having a cartridge and an old system hooked up than just playing an old game as a download. People like having a similar experience to the old days, many people like having an actual copy in front of them, and it's pretty satisfying to track and hunt down a copy of a rare game too.

You might want to rethink claiming universals about a topic you have overestimated your knowledge about.

Personally, I don't think older games should be made free, simply because a game becomes a lot more valuable and satisfying to play if it isn't as readily available as a free download is.

 

[mitchell271]

games 20+? yea, they should be
classics 10+? yea, more people can experience them then
otherwise no

 

[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.

Didn't spend the time researching the others but who pays money for Doom? Isn't that one GPL'd?

http://store.steampowered.com/app/2280/

doom special edition for $10

 

[MrGalactus]

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

....Sounds pretty good to me!
Hell, I'd like it, but 10 years is not really long enough I don't think. Stuff doesn't ever get free, anyway. Not being a cynic, just saying.

I didn't say it would be bad, that would be awesome... mostly because I miss my copy of Roller Coaster Tycoon

It is a seriously great game, that.
Another thing, a new copy of Pokemon Blue, Red, or Yellow thses days will set you back literally hundreds of dollars/pounds/euros/whatever you use. Why would they suddenly make it free just because it came out in the 90's?