Game News PS: T Available on GoG

[spekkio]

@ FTR:

Could you elaborate and post a list of jRPGs that I liked?



Except PST of course, which was "good for what it was" only...?
And Anachronox, because it would be too easy for you, being hardcore PC-elitist.

3-4 posts and the derail will be complete. We can do it, man!

 

[Lomm Cuz]

Publishers invest money in your project but if it fails they dont ask for return of invested money but unlike the bank that just wants it money with interest the publisher wants a share of the profit because they also are taking a risk.

Sure, they won't ask you for your car or your home. They will only destroy your career if you don't adjust to their market agenda, the first name I can remember is Lorne Lanning's Strangers Wrath, a title sinked by EA only for not being an inconvenient in their crap-selling business.

Also, you say they're taking a risk investing money, sure? Well, how much publishers are really taking bankrupt risk investments? If they were taking all that risk they would be falling in bankrupt all the time. One of the greatest rules in the market is to not taking innecesary risks... I want to mean that the risk I take putting my house as collateral isn't any similar in proportion like the risk they take funding my game, but sadly, the results of bad selling will be pretty similar in my career (or even worse).

And that's the point, the only ones who control what is actually selling well are the publishers themself, they not want precedents of good games/good sellers games, because that would create a niche of exigent gamers that could only be appeased with actual quality... and the problem is: real quality means REAL risk.

I'm most amazed at the way some people don't see how it's all been perverted (not that it wasn't before, but now it's systemic).
Gog should give the money got from selling games to the original people who made them, not to rich cocksuckers that bought a company in a fire sale after it went down and fired all employees. This is not hard to see as a capitalist flaw.
Or better expressed: publishers shouldn't exist.

Totally agree, the developers shouldn't have any problem selling their games if there weren't publishers manipulating the market.

In a perfect, wonderful, colorful, jew-clean world.

Also why should GoG give money to the original developers, they are a business who does what it does for profit not charity. They are providing service that costs them money, time and manpower so its logical for them to want to earn something instead of working with loss.

Exactly, they are a business, but there are so much people talking about them like if they were fucking beneficence that the thing is becoming pretty weird.

suck my priveleged dick, shill. copyright was originally a social compact giving right of initial profit to the artist/creator. just because you spread your cheeks now that they've turned it into a way to generate income for eternity doesn't make it ethical, only legal.

Pals, start preparing the baggage before they start hunting us like the Red Menace we are.

This thread:

Fixed

 

[Sceptic]

Yeah awesome, by devs for devs

Just because ONE GUY tried it and did it wrong doesn't mean the concept itself sucks.

Also, this is the same studio that produced Anachronox, aka one of the best games of the decade.

 

[spekkio]

And this other good-far-whatwas game...
Desu Ex or sth.

 

[Zeus]

@ FTR:

Could you elaborate and post a list of jRPGs that I liked?

Let me take a wild guess. :D

 

[spekkio]

^FAIL. CT is shit POPAMOLE.



I've picked my nick carefully, to avoid problems that Raddishu or Kaiserin faced.



But indeed, having this fucker as avatar would be haevan:

 

[Seymour]

Unlike some codexers I don't really have anything against GOG (though personally not big on digital distribution either), they provide a service – legally disentangled, easily accessible, DRM-free games – for a reasonable price. But to assume that somehow their business model single-handedly justifies an incredibly slanted intellectual property system while branding the entire abandonware movement as self-entitled pirates is more than a bit dickish.

Tell me, do you think these developers you're so bravely fighting for are thankful for you pirating their games?

Most of the game makers aren't living off the revenue from those old games anymore. Most of the creative teams behind all those games have long since left the companies that published them, so there's no way the people who deserve to are still making royalties off them. So go ahead--steal this game! Spread the love!

 

[Lomm Cuz]

Most of the game makers aren't living off the revenue from those old games anymore. Most of the creative teams behind all those games have long since left the companies that published them, so there's no way the people who deserve to are still making royalties off them. So go ahead--steal this game! Spread the love!

 

[Clockwork Knight]

And the people who buy the rights don't deserve it because they're evil jews, amirite

 

[Jack]

Yup.

 

[Seymour]

And the people who buy the rights don't deserve it because they're evil jews, amirite

No, they’re giant faceless corporations with the sole purpose of making money. Not that there’s anything wrong with that (hey, I'm no biggot), but the fact remains that they become the sole beneficiary of a system originally designed to regulate books – a tangible, lasting, scarce good usually created by a single person – being shoehorned with no changes into covering software, their almost polar opposite. Last I checked book copyright lasts 75 years after the author's death, with him (then his family) getting royalties for it every step of the way. The videogame industry is, what, 40 years old, does it strike you as particularly fair David Crane being kicked to the curb in a pinch while Activision gets to mooch off fucking Pitfall! (or maybe just leave it to bitrot) for God knows how many years more?

 

[Brother None]

Quoting an interview about abandonware, which also has clear contributionses that aren't as lulzy

Man I can't help but be amazed at the intellectual contributions you guys bring into this

Here's a revolutionary idea: Tim Schafer is an employee. He gets paid, and gives up rights in return for that. If I'm a bricklayer, and I build a wall, I don't come back in 10 years to take it away brick by brick and give them away. Why not? It's not my property.
It's like that in many roads of society. People depend on a structure working rather than getting directly paid. Developers are just a part of that. Are they all exempt from the normal system of an economy that is as big as it is simply because direct trade between people with coincidence of needs is no longer our only source of income? No. They do their job, they get paid, and they do so because they're part of an industry that works. Fucking revolutionary, I know, right?
What you put against it is an unsure untested economic pipe-dream that only has historical analogies in the late Soviet-Union/early Russia's system of "author's rights" and sounds about as tenable as jumping off a high-rise and hoping to float. I'd know which one I'd pick as a dev.

I wonder what an IP debate between people with economic degrees would look like. Little like this hogwash I would wager.

become the sole beneficiary of a system originally designed to regulate books

Don't forget that monopoly of force was originally just about the fortification of the nation-state and since it was originally just about that it has no possible expanded validity in the modern age

Hey, since you put yourself forward to be an expert on legal evolution and the way the IP concept has been reformed (particularly since the Trade Act of 1974, which is apparently when books were made?), I wonder how you feel about the World Trade Organization's response to the reformed author's right and intellectual property in the civil code of Russia in 2005, particularly within the framework of TRIPS-regulated reform in newly emerging countries in the global economy. I think specifically of Human Resources and Intellectual Property in a Global Outsourcing Environment: Focus on China, India, and Eastern Europe by Butterfield, Mason, Payne, and Trumble, or The New Innovation Frontier? Intellectual Property and the European Court of Human Rights by Helfer. My knowledge is fairly limited to putting the IP framework into practical reforms over the last decade but you obviously have much wider and steadier intellectual ground to stand on.
Hell, since you have so obviously considered all the practical implication of Intellectual Property reform rather than just shouting about how we should be living in an idealized society where everyone gets a fair share (by which you mean you should be allowed to take stuff for free), I'm interested in hearing how you think the 100 billion in US losses due to IP infringement (2010 reports as per section 182 of the U.S. Trade Act of 1974) would in no way blow back on the developers you are fighting for. In fact, I'm curious to hear how, exactly, you think these guys are getting paid.

Hear me, brave Codexers! I strongly request that if you feel the need to justify your thievery, to at least put some effort into creating an excuse that stands up to even the basest economic/legal scrutiny. This hippy nonsense is kind of boring

Man, why do I always get lured into IP debates? They're so friggin' asinine.

*masturbates vicariously*

 

[Seymour]

Here's a revolutionary idea: Tim Schafer is an employee. He gets paid, and gives up rights in return for that.

Sure, it's called work for hire, but I don't think it makes for a very fair standard in a creative industry. Comics were once like that too, Spiegel and Kane both saw very little out of their creations which basically built an empire, until Moore, Gaiman and a couple more nutjobs rallied and changed it a bit for the better. A little more creator's rights wouldn't hurt, that's all.

Hey, since you put yourself forward to be an expert on legal evolution and the way the IP concept has been reformed

Not at all, I dabbled a bit on it for my law school graduation thesis but am perfectly aware how little I know about the subject. Feel free to crush my lowly opinion, no need for appeals to authority.

(by which you mean you should be allowed to take stuff for free)

See, this is what I was responding to. Though defending abandonware is, technically, defending piracy (to an extent, since it involves expanding some legal boundaries), not once did I advocate a free-for-all, only that the current term of expiration is quite outlandish when it comes to software. I have no doubt a lot of those programmed for the more obscure hardware would already be lost if it weren’t for some pirates out there.

 

[Morkar Left]

Quoting an interview about abandonware, which also has clear contributionses that aren't as lulzy

Man I can't help but be amazed at the intellectual contributions you guys bring into this

Here's a revolutionary idea: Tim Schafer is an employee. He gets paid, and gives up rights in return for that. If I'm a bricklayer, and I build a wall, I don't come back in 10 years to take it away brick by brick and give them away. Why not? It's not my property.
It's like that in many roads of society. People depend on a structure working rather than getting directly paid. Developers are just a part of that. Are they all exempt from the normal system of an economy that is as big as it is simply because direct trade between people with coincidence of needs is no longer our only source of income? No. They do their job, they get paid, and they do so because they're part of an industry that works. Fucking revolutionary, I know, right?
What you put against it is an unsure untested economic pipe-dream that only has historical analogies in the late Soviet-Union/early Russia's system of "author's rights" and sounds about as tenable as jumping off a high-rise and hoping to float. I'd know which one I'd pick as a dev.

 

[Brother None]

I don't think it makes for a very fair standard in a creative industry.

Yes it does. In what sense would the creative industry be exempt? It is exactly that, an industry. Most of the people in it have jobs only because it is an industry. If creative industry is exempt, what about patent-based industries such as pharmaceuticals? What about new agency? Are these all fine for normal industry standards or should they be exempt? Where do you draw the line? Or how about we're more down to earth and just recognize when something function as an industry? If a developer is not ok with that he has the option to step outside of industry confines and that's fine (though the piracy rate for indies is high, good going you magnificent principled bastards), if he works within the confines he knows exactly what he is, an employee.

Not at all, I dabbled a bit on it for my law school graduation thesis but am perfectly aware how little I know about the subject. Feel free to crush my lowly opinion, no need for appeals to authority.

Uhm, but it's fun? Jeesh, pay attention bro

See, this is what I was responding to. Though defending abandonware is, technically, defending piracy (to an extent, since it involves expanding some legal boundaries), not once did I advocate a free-for-all, only that the current term of expiration is quite outlandish when it comes to software. I have no doubt a lot of those programmed for the more obscure hardware would already be lost if it weren’t for some pirates out there.

I haven't been talking about abandonware. When no one claims rights then go ahead. But the fact that there is no such thing as "former abandonware" should be pretty damn obvious to anyone.

Disagreeing with the experation date is fine even if it is fairly baseless. But IP rights are something the industry must be able to rely on. The massive deconstruction of intellectual property rights on an illegal basis because people don't just disagree but simply take shit that isn't theirs is a good part of the reason the industry is what it is*. It is your right to disagree with laws. Hell, you can disobey laws for all I care, but you'll have a hard time arguing that you have a right to do so in a modern democracy because you have an unrealistic view of economic reality.

Thankfully you courageous rebels don't have to be afraid of getting caught. Fight the good fight

* the bigger part of the reason is that consumers are idiots

 

[zeitgeist]

I wonder what an IP debate between people with economic degrees would look like. Little like this hogwash I would wager.

A bit like a debate on fine cuisine between cannibals perhaps?

 

[Melcar]

Why do discussions about Final Fantasy Planescape always turn to shit?

 

[waywardOne]

hey guys, i read an economics book once and it said you're all wrong.

 

[GuideBot]

suck my priveleged dick, shill. copyright was originally a social compact giving right of initial profit to the artist/creator. just because you spread your cheeks now that they've turned it into a way to generate income for eternity doesn't make it ethical, only legal.

The current system sucks for the people actually creating shit, whether it's movies, books, or games. No argument there. Difference is, I'm not in denial about it. Capitalism won. There ain't gonna be no socialist paradise. Pretending otherwise is simply expecting reality to change to suit your beliefs. Do I wish most of the money from buying PS:T from GOG went to everyone that created it on a percentage basis? Hell yes. But that was never going to be the case. They were employees, not partners. They were never going to receive royalties. If they wanted to do they should have put their house up against getting a loan. But for a lot of people, a regular guaranteed income is more important than taking a risk and either getting rich or going bankrupt.

I'd love if my workplace paid me a percentage of what they make from the customer's services I help provision. But they don't. And if I don't like it I can forgo my dependable wage and strike out on my own. Just like the game developers. And, in fact, I'm working on a game in my spare time precisely for this reason - I'm not going to let someone else profit off my game. Of course, all you pirates have no problem torrenting indie games, either, do you? Half the people in the Eschalon thread decided they were entitled to that for free, too.

I don't think anyone is dumb enough to believe that paying GoG for Planescape Torment is going to result in a grand revival of non-shit RPGs.

No, but it will begin to point publishers towards the viability of mid-budget titles as long sellers. Don't forget, Fallout 1 and Planescape: Torment were both B-reel titles Interplay had no real interest in. Interplay's old attitude is not coming back, but right now B-reel/mid-budget titles are underrepresented in the gaming industry. Independent games aren't the answer to that.
Will there be random (smaller, not EA/Activision-Vivendi) publishers who think to pick up small projects in Europe, or fund a semi-indie project, or help distribute smaller indie projects? Well, the deal certainly becomes more attractive when they realize this is a long-term investment rather than a short one. That's the whole point of the exercise.

I definitely think you have a point here, which I hadn't really considered. There are other games I like to play besides RPGs, after all. It is reliant on either GOG releasing their sales figures or publishers as a group becoming aware that GOG is successful with these old titles, however.

Unlike some codexers I don't really have anything against GOG (though personally not big on digital distribution either), they provide a service – legally disentangled, easily accessible, DRM-free games – for a reasonable price. But to assume that somehow their business model single-handedly justifies an incredibly slanted intellectual property system while branding the entire abandonware movement as self-entitled pirates is more than a bit dickish.

The abandonware movement is understandable. They want to play games that are unavailable. However, the games are owned by someone and it is up to them to sell it if they want to. Acting as though there is a god given right to play those games regardless of the owner's wish is akin to tapping in to my email to read it because I won't sell you the right to - it's my email, and you have no right to it unless I say you do.

I see no problem, personally, with offering up games for free download that are not available for purchase. If the companies don't sell 'em then they're already resolved to making no money off it, right? But it's still illegal. Acting like GOG is taking away our "free stuff" because it is now sellable and some principled members of the abandonware are suggesting people buy the game now that they can is the truly dickish move.

 

[Brother None]

Why do discussions about Final Fantasy Planescape always turn to shit?

Because there's an abundance of shit to be had here?

 

[Zeus]

Why do discussions about Final Fantasy Planescape always turn to shit?

Because there's an abundance of shit to be had here?

:shock:

...

:D

 

[Seymour]

In what sense would the creative industry be exempt?

In the sense that it is their only activity, I guess. Developers can at times be just code monkeys doing grunt work, but every game was thought up by someone or a group of people before pitched to a publisher, and these guys still take the shaft in an ever expanding industry. Activision was founded by a such a bunch who wanted nothing more than having their name on the box, something that went against standard industry practices at the time. It's a good thing they did, and a better one that they succeded.

I haven't been talking about abandonware. When no one claims rights then go ahead. But the fact that there is no such thing as "former abandonware" should be pretty damn obvious to anyone.

No such thing indeed, since legally there isn't even such a thing as abandonware in the first place – which is why we indeed have been talking about it. Something is only considered as such by them filthy, filthy pirates until it is claimed again, which could conceivably happen in a ridiculous timespan incompatible with software life. In no way is downloading Zork less illegal than Planescape: Torment or torrenting Mass Effect 2, nor is abandonia when compared to your average warez site (except maybe that they are willing to accept cease and desists from those that eventually complain), and this I find ludicrous. Abandonware is an artificial definition made up by people more interested in the preservation of old software than its rightful owners (to an extent that sustained interest in old games could arguably be credited to pirates alone), and as such, I believe, a movement for change in copyright law, though I'm sure some people out there use it as a crutch to pirate WoW or something.

you magnificent principled bastards […]you can disobey laws for all I care, but you'll have a hard time arguing that you have a right to do so in a modern democracy because you have an unrealistic view of economic reality[…]Thankfully you courageous rebels don't have to be afraid of getting caught

You know BN, I liked you better at NMA, you used to frown upon strawmen and ad hominens like these. Paint me as a cybercommunist or whatever all you like, I'm not arguing against intellectual property here, merely against how this model is handled towards software in regards to both duration and creator's rights - the last one playing a big part on why a lot of people, Tim Schafer included, fail to give the moral high ground to the industry.

 

[Lomm Cuz]

• • • • • • Hey, since you put yourself forward to be an expert on legal evolution and the way the IP concept has been reformed (particularly since the Trade Act of 1974, which is apparently when books were made?), I wonder how you feel about the World Trade Organization's response to the reformed author's right and intellectual property in the civil code of Russia in 2005, particularly within the framework of TRIPS-regulated reform in newly emerging countries in the global economy. I think specifically of Human Resources and Intellectual Property in a Global Outsourcing Environment: Focus on China, India, and Eastern Europe by Butterfield, Mason, Payne, and Trumble, or The New Innovation Frontier? Intellectual Property and the European Court of Human Rights by Helfer. My knowledge is fairly limited to putting the IP framework into practical reforms over the last decade but you obviously have much wider and steadier intellectual ground to stand on.
            Hell, since you have so obviously considered all the practical implication of Intellectual Property reform rather than just shouting about how we should be living in an idealized society where everyone gets a fair share (by which you mean you should be allowed to take stuff for free), I'm interested in hearing how you think the 100 billion in US losses due to IP infringement (2010 reports as per section 182 of the U.S. Trade Act of 1974) would in no way blow back on the developers you are fighting for. In fact, I'm curious to hear how, exactly, you think these guys are getting paid.

• • • • • • HUNTING SEASON

Magister dixit.

You know BN, I liked you better at NMA, you used to frown upon strawmen and ad hominens like these. Paint me as a cybercommunist or whatever all you like, I'm not arguing against intellectual property here, merely against how this model is handled towards software in regards to both duration and creator's rights - the last one playing a big part on why a lot of people, Tim Schafer included, fail to give the moral high ground to the industry.

 

[Relay]

Here's a revolutionary idea: Tim Schafer is an employee. He gets paid, and gives up rights in return for that. If I'm a bricklayer, and I build a wall, I don't come back in 10 years to take it away brick by brick and give them away. Why not? It's not my property.

You lost me here and anything you write past that sentence doesn't matter since your reasoning is so insane. IP isn't a tangible, material good. If you took back the bricks the dude who bought the wall would be deprived of his material possession. Piracy doesn't work quite like that. People who bought genuine copies of the game aren't losing it to people who warezed it. Game over.

And I say that as someone who bought all of his games (even Dragon Age.. which I regret) so I'm not one of the self entitled pricks who argue just for his self benefit. I don't mind paying for the games but there is no way I'm ever going to buy anything on GoG, ever. It's ridiculous, spending money on something when all of the original creators have been a long time gone ? Really ? How about a nice cup of FUCK YOU ? GoG has found a way to literally print money with little actual work done. I'd rather buy it second hand from a gamer who isn't making a profit on it since he paid the full price before selling his copy and only if I care for the nice box and art.

There is no way to defend a business comprised of lazy bums such as GoG.
GoG is the kind of business that smells of jewgold, if the people behind it aren't actually jew in flesh they must be jews in spirit at least.

 

[someone else]

So if I made a game, I can't sell the rights of the game to others cos they are jews? Less money for me then . I think I should make a business selling game boxes.