• FluffyPotato@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    In the US or Germany: Straight to jail

    In Japan: Your organs are now the property of Nintendo to repay this heinous crime.

    Rest of the world: it depends.

  • WhatsThePoint@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    I don’t understand why these legacy game license owners don’t start licensing out their old games on the cheap to game services like Apple Arcade or Steam to get extra revenue on them. They learned that lesson in video streaming and it gave a ton of mostly dead IP new life.

    • Buttons@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Video games were such a wild west back in the 80s and 90s that it’s often not clear who even owns the copyright anymore.

    • labsin@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      11 months ago

      Cause selling new games is more profitable.

      If a new games costs €60 and older games €5 or less (which would be a lot less on streaming services), they’d have to sell at least 12 old games for every new game they sell less cause of this change. And if gamers spend more time on older games, it’s highly possible that they’d buy, even just a single game, less.

      It’s the same with movies or TV. They would only loose money if they make the whole archive available as there is just so much of it that some of the new things could become irrelevant.

      Not that I’m against archiving, but it is caused by the creative sector having to have to make money, which isn’t easy for smaller players, and greed.

      • dependencyinjection@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        The old games are already made and the new ones are yet to be made.

        So one has costs to come out of the profits. The other doesn’t.

        I don’t understand your argument.

  • hark@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    I thought there was a site that let at most x number of people play games where x is the number of physical copies the site creator had on hand for that game. The industry doesn’t like this either, but the industry can go fuck itself. They’ve already practically taken away the public domain by making the period for copyright expiration too damn long.