Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
Copyrights on Games

By Nikau in Op-Ed
Fri Mar 01, 2002 at 01:37:05 AM EST
Tags: Software (all tags)
Software

The recent article about mame.dk brought me back to something I have been thinking about for some time now: video game copyrights. I'm not sure how appropriate it is for copyrights on games to last as long as they could.

Unfortunately it didn't say in either the article or on the mame.dk site who the copyright holder is, but if the holder is a company whose game is 10+ years old, should they still be allowed to hold that copyright for the full duration?


Consider the video games of the 1980s. Arcade games, Nintendo games, Sega games... The list goes on. Both Nintendo and Sega have long ceased production of their original consoles, the NES and Master System. I highly doubt many of the arcade games of the 80s are still active. None of these companies are making much, if any, money off of these systems. Neither are the publishers of games from the NES and Master System.

Aside from the fact that these games are no longer produced and available for sale new, you could also think about how the technology used in the games has improved and there is now a higher standard to be set by games. When you look at the original Super Mario Brothers game and then look at something more recent like Luigi's Mansion on the GameCube, what are more gamers most likely to play? Certainly younger gamers, those who did not grow up knowing the old side-scrolling games would be more interested in what is available today. Maybe some of the older gamers, too. Myself, I still enjoy the old games and play them from time to time. Some of the games are lost, however, because you can't find them anywhere to buy, only on the Internet where they can be downloaded - illegally at this point.

Currently the copyright limitations for these games would be something along the lines of at least 70 years, thanks to the Copyright Extension Act of 1998. As far as I know, these video games fall under this law, meaning the soonest that the games of the NES and Master System could be freely available is somewhere around 2055.

Are any of these companies still making money off of the original games? Not likely. Certain game franchises like Nintendo's Mario and Luigi, as well as Sega's Sonic the Hedgehog exist to this day, but I don't think that means that they still receive income from those first games.

I wholly believe that game publishers are entitled to keep their games under copyright. However, does it really make sense for those companies to hold on to them for over 70 years? Games are a bit different from books, music, movies in that interest in games holds for considerably less time.

Releasing the games to the public could present many benefits. It would be good PR for the developers, for one. It would also help these games last for a very long time - the Internet is currently the best system for archiving our history and culture (currently it seems that thanks to P2P applications music and movies would last for a very long time). Finally, it could mostly serve as a way of interesting people in current games, much the same way that some people use MP3s to "try before you buy". Personally, I would also just like to have these games again.

I believe that the game publishers (for both console and computer games) should release the games into the public domain, available as ROMs, for example, after a given period of time. Whether this is by choice or by law, I don't think it matters. Releasing the old games is not going to cause financial harm to these companies, but making them publicly available has its benefits. Keeping them under corporate control for so long just doesn't make much sense.

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Poll
Game copyrights?
o All games should be free (as in beer) 15%
o Copyrighted for ten years then released 52%
o Copyrighted for twenty years then released 18%
o Copyrighted for the full duration then released 11%
o Never released for free 1%

Votes: 59
Results | Other Polls

Related Links
o article
o mame.dk
o Also by Nikau


Display: Sort:
Copyrights on Games | 30 comments (30 topical, editorial, 0 hidden)
Well, (4.66 / 9) (#1)
by trhurler on Thu Feb 28, 2002 at 04:47:03 PM EST

The basic problem here is simple: old games DO make money. Do you think Nintendo is able to make and sell new Donkey Kong titles just because the new titles are that cool? Of course not; frankly a lot of them suck. But, they say Donkey Kong on them, you see. Also, old games put into anthologies make money(there are several of these for the Playstation consoles.) Maybe not as much as new games, but money nevertheless.

Your claim seems to be that because these old games become irrelevant and relatively worthless, they should become free. The problem I see is that if they were really becoming irrelevant and relatively worthless, then you would not want them to be free. That people want them suggests that there IS a market, and that this property DOES have value.

Incidentally, I am not particularly against a requirement that if a company wants to keep exclusive rights to previously published intellectual property, it must occasionally republish it. This would mean lots of anthologies of games at very reasonable prices, which would probably make you happy, and it wouldn't involve arbitrarily deciding that "this is worthy of continued copyright protection but this other thing is not" based on some notion of value that is totally detached from whether or not people will pay for the thing in question, be it a book, a game, or whatever.

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

GBA (4.00 / 2) (#2)
by garlic on Thu Feb 28, 2002 at 04:48:55 PM EST

AFAIK, nintento has been publishing older games in new format for the GBA. This is why it would be dumb for them to give them away for free. How do they know they won't think of a way to use it?

HUSI challenge: post 4 troll diaries on husi without being outed as a Kuron, or having the diaries deleted or moved by admins.
[ Parent ]

Intellectual Property (2.00 / 2) (#3)
by theantix on Thu Feb 28, 2002 at 05:08:50 PM EST

trhurler, I would be greatly interested to hear your thoughts on the legitimacy of intellectual property rights. You should do another one of your famous diaries on that subject! Or you could reply to this comment, or point me to where you have given a good description of your thoughts on this issue. Or I suppose you could just ignore me altogether! =)

--
You sir, are worse than Hitler!
[ Parent ]
In truth (3.00 / 1) (#5)
by trhurler on Thu Feb 28, 2002 at 05:20:22 PM EST

I'm convinced that the system we have is not quite right. However, I'm equally convinced that "information wants to be free" is not a sufficient argument to put everyone in the business of creating information in homeless shelters; what they are producing obviously has economic value, and I do not think that simply because it can be copied without cost, they should not be compensated - it wouldn't exist AT ALL without those people!

I'm thinking about whether contract law could be adapted to provide for such situations, but I'm not convinced.

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
Yes, it's difficult (3.00 / 1) (#7)
by theantix on Thu Feb 28, 2002 at 06:52:26 PM EST

I'm in a similar position then. I am also "convinced that the system we have is not quite right.", but am unsatisfied with the rebuttal "information wants to be free". I'm unconvinced by most approaches that I've seen on the subject, and I'm trying to come up with a consistant approach.

I do like your idea about terminating IP rights if the IP is not offered for sale. But how do you rephrase that under a more principled argument, or is that even possible?

--
You sir, are worse than Hitler!
[ Parent ]

It is possible.. (none / 0) (#10)
by dice on Thu Feb 28, 2002 at 07:20:10 PM EST

But only if one wants to take a utilitarian approach, which for various reasons seems repugnant.

If you understand intellectual property rights (misnomer, more later) to be an agreement between society and the holder, the purpose is to promote creative works that are then covered by those, so as to give the society creative works. If the holder's not giving society creative works, then the agreement isn't even valid, and shouldn't be covered.

As far as intellectual property in the first place.. Outside of a 'good for society' argument, you're left with things like individual liberty and all that good stuff. The template for which, stated roughly, is don't do anything to harm someone else. Assuming we agree that ownership is a valid concept, property rights make sense in the context of an extension of the person. Any theft, mutilation, or use without consent is analogous to an assault on the person.

You can't have that for intellectual property. Or any data. Any information. The ability for it to be duplicated without loss really is a distinguishing factor of rather great note. Without the immediate loss of property of the 'victim', there's nothing wrong going on. In fact it turns out to be against classic property rights, in the idea that you don't even own the ideas in your own head, *which you may have gotten from someone else*.


[ Parent ]
Pretty good (none / 0) (#22)
by cpt kangarooski on Fri Mar 01, 2002 at 04:51:25 PM EST

I'd just point out that real and personal property rights are, like copyrights, founded in utilitarianist theory. Not originally, mind you, but the theory works _very_ well towards describing how property evolved in various cultures, and has been accepted as the basis for it for a couple hundred years.

It's why you see concepts like mandated alienability of property, or eminent domain.

While I'm not for utilitarianism everywhere (e.g. in criminal law, where it is very dangerous if left alone) it's the best way to go with regards to property, and that's the common opinion. What's wrong with it that makes it repugnant, pray?

--
All my posts including this one are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
[ Parent ]
Utilitarianism.. (none / 0) (#29)
by dice on Sat Mar 02, 2002 at 08:07:43 AM EST

Utilitarianism tends to end up disregarding the individual, more specifically individual rights, in the quest for maximum utility. Forced sacrifice is really not a noble goal.

Some sort of measurement of value for society is great, just not really relevant. "Society" is really more of an emergent property, than one of any real use to us. The ability to look at multiple levels of groupings ends up being harmful in this case.

I'm sorry, I don't know how rational this comes across. In a summary: utilitarianism is repugnant for the arrogance of any person thinking they can somehow manage to evaluate, measure, and predict the good for a society. It doesn't become repugnant in practice until someone tries to force it onto another person, of course..

[ Parent ]
Alright (none / 0) (#30)
by cpt kangarooski on Sat Mar 02, 2002 at 12:04:43 PM EST

I can see where you're coming from with this, and I generally would agree. However, this is a different scenario than you describe -- utilitarianism is being used here to justify the creation of new rights from whole cloth. If its use is repugnant to anyone, it is to the readers who, prior to the institution of copyright, could copy whatever they wanted to.

--
All my posts including this one are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
[ Parent ]
Availability of games (3.50 / 2) (#4)
by Nikau on Thu Feb 28, 2002 at 05:16:53 PM EST

I suppose I wouldn't have any problem with the publishing of anthologies, but the fact is, there haven't been any for many of the old games. The Playstation is the main exception, I think... Especially when Sony has been re-releasing games under the budget label. They maybe shouldn't be free, but the publishers should at least make an effort to let these games become available again.

Naturally I should have thought of this before I posted the article, but as always hindsight is 20/20.

---
I have a zero-tolerance policy for zero-tolerance policies, and this policy itself is the exception to itself which allows me to have it without being contradictory. - Happy Monkey
[ Parent ]

Just keep a few copies around (none / 0) (#17)
by hardburn on Fri Mar 01, 2002 at 11:57:42 AM EST

Incidentally, I am not particularly against a requirement that if a company wants to keep exclusive rights to previously published intellectual property, it must occasionally republish it.

A company could just "republish" the game by printing a few copies and putting them in a warehouse. So you need some definition of "reasonably republished" where intrested parties can still get ahold of a copy without having to pull strings.

Also see my other comment about one bad experiance with a republished game.


----
while($story = K5::Story->new()) { $story->vote(-1) if($story->section() == $POLITICS); }


[ Parent ]
Reasonably republished (none / 0) (#20)
by squigly on Fri Mar 01, 2002 at 03:02:12 PM EST

A company could just "republish" the game by printing a few copies and putting them in a warehouse.
There would be a certain cost to doing that though. Copying a CD would probably cost a few dollars in labour costs, and so a company with extremely fussy accountants would consider it better to let the copyright lapse than spend the money. It would also ensure that the game is available in a format readable by modern equipment somewhere.

But a better definition of "reasonably republish" would be at least one copy sold in the past year. This might mean there's a loophole in selling to oneself, but they would prefer to sell it. I can think of a few games, and dozens of videos that I would be willing to spend the full original price on.

I wouldn't like this lapse to put it in the public domain though. If it is sold, then the copyright owner should still be entitled to royalties.

[ Parent ]

Preservation (none / 0) (#18)
by dasunt on Fri Mar 01, 2002 at 01:03:56 PM EST

Let's look at our happy-go-lucky arcade and abandonware buff. He has the roms for many, many games, over a thousand, and the source code for MAME. He also has many old NES, SMS, Atari, C64, Intellivision, SNES, and Genesis roms, plus the emulators to play them. If he's like many an abandonware fiend, he also has a large collection of old 1980's games, with poor graphics, most of which probably need to be artificially slowed down to even be played.

Yes, there is a large amount of copywrite violation going on here. However, there is also a large amount of preservation too. Right now, his collection tells a lot about gaming from about 1975-1995. He has preserved works and ideas that would have probably been lost. Yet its all illegal. Under the laws of the US, which were intended to promote the flow of ideas into the public domain, preserving old works is illegal, even if the companies that "own" them have no interest in keeping them alive.



[ Parent ]
Has anyone thought (none / 0) (#6)
by medham on Thu Feb 28, 2002 at 05:53:23 PM EST

Of Tempest?


The real 'medham' has userid 6831.

Try looking into... (4.00 / 1) (#8)
by jabber on Thu Feb 28, 2002 at 07:09:04 PM EST

Abandonware.

[TINK5C] |"Is K5 my kapusta intellectual teddy bear?"| "Yes"

I feel.. (4.00 / 1) (#9)
by rebelcool on Thu Feb 28, 2002 at 07:17:00 PM EST

it's not an issue of length of copyright as it is fair use.

One of the main tenants of the fair use doctrine is the 'affect on the market'. If your use of a work does not have a significant affect on the market for that product, then your use can be legal.

Many of these games are no longer found on store shelves, or in arcades. The affect on the market is 0, because there is no market for them.

Of course, if someone is still selling the game, then certainly, free copying does affect the market and should be illegal.

COG. Build your own community. Free, easy, powerful. Demo site

Modern Distribution (4.00 / 2) (#11)
by Happy Monkey on Thu Feb 28, 2002 at 08:47:40 PM EST

With modern distribution methods, economies of scale are no longer a valid reason not to have a "use it or lose it" copyright for all intellectual property. Disney's practice of keeping something out of circulation until demand builds up, while a lucrative busines practice, would generally be considered an abuse of monopoly power in other industries. My proposal: All copyrighted products should be available at or below original price from the copyright holder, or it will revert to the public domain.
___
Length 17, Width 3
Quality (3.66 / 3) (#12)
by rde on Thu Feb 28, 2002 at 11:55:03 PM EST

A few people have mentioned that some of the older games weren't that good, and that the publisher would be unlikely to make money on them even if they did republish.
For your consideration, though: supposing they didn't republish because the games were good?

It's an old, old theme; games aren't as good as they used to be. Like any other "n was better in the old days" argument, there's a lot of misty nostalgia involved, but that doesn't mean that there wasn't a kernel of truth.

On my PS2, I've a bunch of good looking games. Kessen looks great, but I finished it in two days. On the spectrum, Manic Miner took me over a year to finish. Like all the best spectrum games, it had crappy graphics, but great gameplay. These days, presentation definitely takes precedence over substance.

Supposing, today, I want to play a simple, mindless shoot-em-up. Will I dig out the spectrum emulator and play Commando, or will I spend sixty euros on a pretty game in a huge box that's mostly air?

I'm not suggesting, btw, that this is the reason evil publishers are forcing their crap on us. I paid for Quake III, and back when I had a windows machine I paid for, amongst other, the excellent Red Alert and Diablo. But I still love playing Manic Miner, Chuckie Egg, Commando, Atic Atac and the myriad other games that are far superior to any of today's offerings, and are freely available for download.

My suggestion for IP rejigging: I'd like to see games come into the public domain 8 years after they were last published. This'd give time for next generation consoles/computers, and allow emulators and afficianados of older machines to pursue gaming excellence with a clear conscience.

Copyright as long as it's available (4.00 / 1) (#13)
by enterfornone on Fri Mar 01, 2002 at 01:26:23 AM EST

IIRC there is a provision in copyright law that allows you to photocopy an entire book if that book is out of print and no longer available. It makes sense to allow the same for games and other software - you only get to have copyright if you are still supplying the product.

Of course trademarks (such as Donkey Kong) would not have this restriction, so people could get old Donkey Kong games while Nintendo could ensure that only they could make new ones. I think that would be fair.

--
efn 26/m/syd
Will sponsor new accounts for porn.
Easy question (3.00 / 1) (#14)
by mewse on Fri Mar 01, 2002 at 05:16:37 AM EST

The copyright owner is the owner of the game. They're the only one that can decide whether to offer it publically, and for what price. End of story. (I agree, incidentally. It's always a good PR move for a company to release their earlier games for free.. but it must be their choice -- nobody else has the right to make that choice)

mewse
Professional video game programmer



Why not? (none / 0) (#15)
by squigly on Fri Mar 01, 2002 at 07:25:25 AM EST

I agree that by creating something, the author should be granted certain rights to enable him to profit from this, but where do these rights end?

This policy will clearly never disadvantage the author, but what about society? Hundreds of works are being lost because of the lack of interest in preserving them. Pac Man and Space Invaders are pieces of history, and neither of these will come out of copyright this half of this century. Will there still be copies of these around for historians to learn from?

The potential supply of a copyrighted work is unlimited. What right does an author have to eliminate that supply? If people copy it for free, then they are not depriving him of anything. Should there not be certain obligations that come with this right? Such as the obligation to make copies available at a reasonable price?

And please consider where the money that pays for a game eventually comes from. It's not the publisher. It's not the programmer. It's the consumer. Eventually all of the money came from people shelling out their money to buy copies of the game.

[ Parent ]

Follow the money (none / 0) (#23)
by mewse on Fri Mar 01, 2002 at 07:14:55 PM EST

No. The money that paid for the game didn't come from the consumer -- that's where the profit came from. The money that paid for the game came from the people producing the game. All the consumers bought were individual copies of the game -- not the game itself. That's a very important distinction, and one that gets glossed over all too frequently.

As for "What right does an author have to eliminate the potential supply of a copyrighted work", the answer should be obvious: What right does someone totally unrelated to the creation of a creative work have to dictate under what terms that work should be made available to the public? If I wrote and owned the copyright to Space Invaders, and I want to keep the lone existing boards sitting in a dank and musty cellar under my house, what right have you to tell me different?

mewse



[ Parent ]
Re: Follow the money (none / 0) (#24)
by tesuji on Fri Mar 01, 2002 at 08:36:16 PM EST

As for "What right does an author have to eliminate the potential supply of a copyrighted work", the answer should be obvious: What right does someone totally unrelated to the creation of a creative work have to dictate under what terms that work should be made available to the public? If I wrote and owned the copyright to Space Invaders, and I want to keep the lone existing boards sitting in a dank and musty cellar under my house, what right have you to tell me different?

As long you write space invaders and keep the boards in your cellar, no one has the right to tell you anything.

However, when you take advantage of the protection of the US Copyright Act to make exclusive profit from your work, the people who provided you with that exclusive protection have every right to limit it in any way they please. There is no natural right to protection of your intellectual property. The copyright laws are a bargain between intellectual property producers and intellectual property consumers. If the producers or consumers can convince their lawmakers that the bargain is unfair, and that it should be changed, then it is perfectly just and fitting that it happen, because the exclusive protection of your right to determine what happens with your work was granted by the very same people.

And come on, do you really think that in a market where a console's period of commercial viability is at most 8-10 years, that the period of copyright protection should be 70 years? In 70 years, the number of functional Playstations in the world will be negligible and almost no one will get to benefit from public domain availability of that content. Keeping in mind that promoting the creation of artistic content for the public is the driving force behind the creation of the copyright laws, I certainly think it's fair to argue that copyright duration on software should be shortened.

[ Parent ]
Yup (none / 0) (#25)
by mewse on Fri Mar 01, 2002 at 09:17:52 PM EST

I'm not following your argument. What difference does a console's lifespan make? We're talking about software, not hardware. Case in point: a year or two back, Squaresoft re-released their early Final Fantasy games on the Playstation, even though they'd originally been released on the SNES. Midway and Atari have been putting out re-releases of their old coin-op games for almost every platform under the sun. How does this fit in with your assertion?

Remember that it takes as much as two years of my life to create a high-quality video game. How long do you think is a fair length of time to retain control of that artistic work, bearing in mind that I can move it from one platform to another, if I should so choose.

For extra credit, compare and contrast your answer to the case of a Frank Sinatra song released on 8-track, then cassette, then CD, then DAT, then DVD-Audio. Remember that that song is protected for 70 years, despite the death of the earlier formats under which it was released.

mewse



[ Parent ]
Re: Yup (none / 0) (#26)
by tesuji on Fri Mar 01, 2002 at 10:47:17 PM EST

Case in point: a year or two back, Squaresoft re-released their early Final Fantasy games on the Playstation, even though they'd originally been released on the SNES. Midway and Atari have been putting out re-releases of their old coin-op games for almost every platform under the sun. How does this fit in with your assertion?

I think this point is weak for the following reason: the company could choose to release FF3 for the SNES from it's copyright (or the copyright could be taken from it by the proposed change in the copyright act) and then it would be legal to spread roms of it around. They could port it to the Playstation and the PS version would be covered under a new copyright term, as a different work. Of course, this argument relies on the assumption that that's actually how copyrights on similar/derived works work. For an answer to that, I'd have to consult a lawyer =).

Remember that it takes as much as two years of my life to create a high-quality video game. How long do you think is a fair length of time to retain control of that artistic work, bearing in mind that I can move it from one platform to another, if I should so choose.

Bearing in mind my assumption above, this is a non-issue, since the new platform's work would get its own term.

For extra credit, compare and contrast your answer to the case of a Frank Sinatra song released on 8-track, then cassette, then CD, then DAT, then DVD-Audio. Remember that that song is protected for 70 years, despite the death of the earlier formats under which it was released.

This is a very good point. I can't really answer it except by reiterating: the protection of the exclusivity of the content producer's profits isn't guaranteed by God or physics - if the hypothetical interested public convinced the lawmakers that the current term is unfair to the people - and I think that it is - then there's nothing wrong (morally speaking, or for "fairness'" sake) with changing the copyright term for software.

[ Parent ]
Sure. (none / 0) (#28)
by mewse on Sat Mar 02, 2002 at 04:24:00 AM EST

Okay. If they change the law, then it's legal. No argument. Of course, if you shorten the copyright period for games, then you'd better believe that I'll seriously reconsider expending my creative energies on creating games. Or rather, that I would, if I was creating games for profit. Since I'm not, it's rather a moot point. But I think it's fair to point out that if I spend two years of my life creating a game (and that's not far off industry average), you'd better believe that I want to have the rights to that game for more than just six to eight years.



[ Parent ]
When does it get sold? (none / 0) (#27)
by squigly on Sat Mar 02, 2002 at 04:10:29 AM EST

With real world property, once it is sold, and a profit has been made the creator loses all rights, and the buyer gains all rights. You would have no right to prevent the buyer from doing whatever they want with it, even though they offered no assistance in the creation.

Obviously with intellectual property, this situation is different. Copyright allows you to sell a copy of your game, and keep all rights to the game itself. The money still eventually comes from the consumer. Without the potential income from a future customer, the publisher would not have risked that money. The customer accepted that there was a markup associated with the actual costs incurred to create the game, and willingly paid it. Profit comes after the production costs are reimbursed. Hence, the customer is an essential part of the creation of the game.

If I wrote and owned the copyright to Space Invaders, and I want to keep the lone existing boards sitting in a dank and musty cellar under my house, what right have you to tell me different?
Well, my point is more that if you do want to do that, then you have no right to prevent me from selling copies, or rather you shouldn't (you do of course have that legal right). Copyright is a right granted to you to enable you to spread your creative work. I believe that if you want to exercise this right, you should also have an obligation to do so.

[ Parent ]
Abandonware and re-releases (none / 0) (#16)
by hardburn on Fri Mar 01, 2002 at 11:45:46 AM EST

There was a recent article on GameSpot about abandonware. It was found (not too surprisingly, IMHO) that while the big publishing companies make claims of "going after abandonware with the same vigor as any other warez", the developers themselves really don't care that much.

There was an intresting point that at some time, a publisher may want to re-release an old game as part of a series (when the Super Nintendo was new, Nintendo enhanced the graphics of the NES versions of Mario and released all those titles for the SNES on a single cartridge).

Such re-releases often add something to the orginal (better graphics, easter eggs, etc.), and if they are done well enough, I'll happily buy the re-release instead of of grabbing the old version off an abandonware site.

One case where a re-release was totally botched was X-Com. One day, I got the urge to play the orginal version of X-Com. I knew I had the orginal disks somewhere, but I couldn't find them. I could find the newer "X-Com Apocolypse", but that game is quite different in terms of gameplay. I wanted the original. I knew Hasbro had made a re-release of the game (packaged with the second game and "Apocolypse"), and it would take me fifteen minutes of driving and ten bucks to go down to the mall, buy it, and fifteen minutes back.

The game sucked. They had recompiled the original DOS version into a Win32+DirectX application (why?). It was copompiled for and older version of DirectX, and the APIs used must have changed signficantly since the orginal (Microsoft never has been good with backwards compatibility in DirectX). The game was completly unplayable on Windows. Strangly, it was almost useable on WINE. Almost. The only game that actualy worked in the pack was "Apocolypse", which I already had.

After some time searching on abandonware sites, I found the orginal version and grabed it. Works just fine, and I haven't seen a glitch in DOS compatibility, even on WinME.


----
while($story = K5::Story->new()) { $story->vote(-1) if($story->section() == $POLITICS); }


AD&D SSI Gold Box Games! (none / 0) (#21)
by dbc001 on Fri Mar 01, 2002 at 04:14:26 PM EST

a publisher may want to re-release an old game as part of a series (when the Super Nintendo was new, Nintendo enhanced the graphics of the NES versions of Mario and released all those titles for the SNES on a single cartridge).

If they dont re-release the old SSI Gold Box Games with updated graphics (whoever owns the rights these days) at some point, I will just do it myself eventually. I got my Quake 2 source, now I just have to learn C++...

-dbc

ps. No, Pool of Radiance 2 just didnt cut it. That old combat system was fucking flawless (or almost!).

[ Parent ]
While we are talking about abandonware... (none / 0) (#19)
by mazachan on Fri Mar 01, 2002 at 02:47:45 PM EST

How come every time I see these topics, people always neglect to mention Activision? I remember in 1995 I think, where they re-released a whole bunch of games from the Atari for Windows on a cd-rom. I remember paying something like 10-20 bucks for it. And it was fun. Also, what about Wolfenstein? These games are being re-released. I whole-heartedly wish that the publishers will, at least, release the games they have no intention of rereleasing into the abandonware domain, but I suppose that it is hard to tell if they will have plans to re-release.

Copyrights on Games | 30 comments (30 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!