bit-tech.net - Abandonware: The Ethics and Essentials

Benedict said:

Reviews seem positive.

Click to expand...

Yeah, it does! I'm going to check it out too!

Alrik Fassbauer said:

Wait a moment.

You believe that games are not meant for playing/to be played ?

For what reasons are they called "games" then ?

Click to expand...

No. He most likely means that people can't just devote ten million to developing a game and then release it for free, just because games "are meant to be played." There's this whole investment and return thing.

Alrik Fassbauer said:

Wait a moment.

You believe that games are not meant for playing/to be played ?

For what reasons are they called "games" then ?

Click to expand...

They're called games because they're products aiming to be sold in the gaming market segment (where they might or might not be played - but the publisher, distributor and retailer do not play the game really).

DArtagnan said:

If there's a way to compensate those responsible for quality - I'll be right there to do it.

If the compensated are not deserving of compensation, I don't have the slightest interest in compensating.

Click to expand...

Then the existing set up where we pay for games works for you just fine - if something isn't worth paying for then you just don't play it and you won't have paid for it.

Essaliad said:

No. He most likely means that people can't just devote ten million to developing a game and then release it for free, just because games "are meant to be played." There's this whole investment and return thing.

Click to expand...

Yup.

Of course, there are some games that are designed just to be played, not made money from - and you can find many of them on freeware sites or linux gaming sites. But on the other hand there are games which were made because some people want a career out of it, and thus they need to be paid.

Then the existing set up where we pay for games works for you just fine - if something isn't worth paying for then you just don't play it and you won't have paid for it.

Click to expand...

I only consider a game worth paying for if it benefits the people responsible for bringing it to life - directly or indirectly.

It's about rewarding the right people.

life doesn't work like that. you don't buy things and then pay what you think there worth and to whom. the only thing that works like that is thievery and those who justify it. changing the rules because someone thinks the setup is wrong is still cheating, and its irrelevant if there method may be the better as its unfair to those who do follow it on all sides. anarchists ruin the efforts and chances of those who try to be progressive in all things.

my apologies if that is not your stance and your last 2 comments aren't in that view but if they are they i say "good day!"

curious said:

life doesn't work like that. you don't buy things and then pay what you think there worth and to whom. the only thing that works like that is thievery and those who justify it. changing the rules because someone thinks the setup is wrong is still cheating, and its irrelevant if there method may be the better as its unfair to those who do follow it on all sides. anarchists ruin the efforts and chances of those who try to be progressive in all things.

my apologies if that is not your stance and your last 2 comments aren't in that view but if they are they i say "good day!"

Click to expand...

I'm not sure you understand my position, nor do I really care what you might call it.

Some people are comfortable following rules no matter who makes them and why, and that's fine by me.

That's just not my personal approach and I've never spent a day in my adult life without questioning one rule or the other - nor do I foresee such a peaceful existence anywhere in my future.

I have no idea how anyone can put that kind of responsibility in the hands of politicians and their interpretation of justice.

But then, I don't have to understand - I just do what I feel is right when I have the opportunity.

This article surprised me, because I thought it would delve into the concept of "abandoned" in a legal sense. I suppose it probably just didn't occur to the author.

It's been about fifteen years, but I got some legal advice about this sort of thing when I began nosing around the Internet for information. That also blurred the lines of ethics, which is why I consulted my attorney.

Shortly after everyone and their grandma became suddenly interested in getting Web access, 1993 or so, businesses started building their own private networks using Internet protocol. For a variety of reasons, they connected them to the Internet. But they were very slow to understand how the Internet worked or the need for security.

It was beyond easy to gain access to their private information. All you really had to do was browse their Web site a little differently. It was as if they put their records out on the curb, one where the entire world walked by twenty-four hours a day.

My attorney advised me that the information had been abandoned, even if those companies weren't aware of it. He said it was ethical to read their records if they placed them in a public place and made, literally, no attempt to safeguard them.

Obviously, that situation has changed. Don't get me wrong -- I'm no hacker.

To me this idea applies to abandoned software. If companies are going to make no attempt to protect their property, knowing it's in a public place where everyone is helping themselves to it, then I think they lose some of their legal status with it.

Squeek said:

To me this idea applies to abandoned software. If companies are going to make no attempt to protect their property, knowing it's in a public place where everyone is helping themselves to it, then I think they lose some of their legal status with it.

Click to expand...

There's a massive and key difference here though: The companies are not putting their data in a public place, someone else is.

If someone robs your house, steals something of yours and then leaves it in a public place, you haven't lost any of your legal ownership of the property, nor does everyone else suddenly have a right to use it. Especially if that property is clearly labelled as yours.

True, and that's a very good point. On the other hand, we're talking about downloads, so there's no actual loss of inventory. That means there's no financial loss at all if the game isn't producing revenue.

It's the nature of the product that it can easily be copied and distributed, and that makes it somewhat unique. Protecting a software license is a little like protecting a trademark. Who ever goes after anyone who copies a trademark? No one unless the owner of the trademark takes action to protect it.

exactly. the property is originally the developers who sold it to the publishers. its the publishers who don't care and the developers have usually zero control on where there stuff is and it usually does not default back to the people who created it.

DA- i personally don't think all laws should necessarily be stricly followed either. who said anything about politicians? a democracy is only as strong as its people, and anarchists view are using bred from arrogance that "this time" is somehow more important than any other in history and they want to see their ideals come to fruition in the present rather than strugling for both the present and the future in which they will only be dust. stealing however is a different story as with a game, music, etc. just because you don't enjoy it or it may have been made poorly--people poured their hearts and efforts into their creation and even if said devlopers are 'whores' for the mass market, stealing games is rape.

the internet is full of consequenceless opinions, yours or mine. i have no desire to argue but would like to understand yours and anyone else opinion. why waste the time writing if not to further something? i wouldn't have even jumped in if you hadn't repeated your rather confrontational position.

i only have this question to pose. how can a person do what is 'right' if what we understand is limited and evovling over time?

curious said:

i only have this question to pose. how can a person do what is 'right' if what we understand is limited and evovling over time?

Click to expand...

If he can't know what he's doing is right - then he's under no obligation to do anything, right or wrong?

That doesn't make sense to me.

In my world, we're limited just as you say by what we think we know, and as such we can only strive to use that knowledge to the best of our ability. Personally, that's what I practice as often as I can when I decide whether I should pay for a classic game that may or may not be abandonware. I have no desire to compensate the wrong people - but since I hardly ever play that kind of game I don't really have examples on hand. What you can do is name whatever title and tell me who's selling it and how they acquired the license to sell it - and I'll tell you if I'd bother paying for it or not.

As for the poor developers pouring their heart out to the mass market, I DO compensate them, because I think it's fair to give people payment for their work. That's why I purchase games like Mass Effect and Fallout 3 - even though I don't really want to support that particular direction for the industry.

That doesn't mean I think it's right or wrong - as I don't think in those terms. I have to take each individual situation and consider what I know carefully - because you can't generalise your choices in matters such as this, or at least I don't feel comfortable doing it.

So basically, I'm not really "raping" anyone as you say - but I wouldn't think twice about not paying if the people on the receiving end don't have it coming.

Oh, and about democracy reflecting its people - that's only partially true. But even if it was true - that's hardly an incentive to consider it a flawless political system. People are greedy and ignorant in general, myself included - though I strive to be so to a lesser degree than many. But laws are generally voted for by elected politicians - and whether we "chose" those people or not, we have no direct control over their choices or how the individual laws are formulated precisely.

Anyway, you may consider me an anarchist, but understand that anarchy might just be a very desirable state of the world if people had similar ideals and values. In fact, just thinking about a world full of DArtagnans (and female versions) makes me picture nothing but utopia

DArtagnan said:

Anyway, you may consider me an anarchist, but understand that anarchy might just be a very desirable state of the world if people had similar ideals and values. In fact, just thinking about a world full of DArtagnans (and female versions) makes me picture nothing but utopia

Click to expand...

So, stand for election as an arachist. If enough people agree with you then you can enact it

I know we all hate the evil publishers and all, but here are some things to consider...

* Many game companies does "work for hire". A publisher will contact them, holding some license, and ask the developer to do a specific game for them. Many developers depend on this kind of work, and would have to close if it weren't for the publishers.

* The publisher pays for the entire production, while the game developer often does not throw any money into the pot. If the game fails (possibly due to a lousy implementation of the devs) then the developers will have been paid monthly wages during the production cycle while the publisher will only be able to write it off as a loss.

* Even when a game developer comes up with an original IP it will often depend on a publisher to fund the entire project. If no publisher is willing to risk its money on the project, then the game will never see the light of the day! If the game fails, see above...

* For the reasons states above I think it's safe to say that the publishers are indeed very directly involved in bringing a game to life (even though it is from a financial point of view).

* You may not realize this, but for most game projects the publisher is also (for better or worse) involved directly in the creative process. There is a good chance that someone from the publisher of your favorite game was directly involved in making some of the decisions that *makes* this your favorite game!

* Yes, often the publisher can be annoying when taking part in the creative process of making a game (from the developers point of view). Usually this is because the publisher will want to remove the parts it sees as "risky" for maximizing sales. Even if this is annoying I think it is understandable given the financial reasons states above.

All in all I think it is a bit naive to look at the relationship between developers and publishers in a black and white fashion. The publishers risks a lot of money, they create a lot of jobs and without them we would not have any games at all. They *are* deserving of receiving some financial rewards for the games we like. So are the developers of course, and they will - through their royalty agreement with the publisher. Whether or not the common royalty agreements are fair or not is another discussion...

DArtagnan said:

I only consider a game worth paying for if it benefits the people responsible for bringing it to life - directly or indirectly.

It's about rewarding the right people.

Click to expand...

So if I put up $10MM to build a game, then decide to get my cash out by selling it to EA, EA doesn't deserve to be 'rewarded' for their outlay of cash, just because it was after the fact?

blatantninja said:

So if I put up $10MM to build a game, then decide to get my cash out by selling it to EA, EA doesn't deserve to be 'rewarded' for their outlay of cash, just because it was after the fact?

Click to expand...

EA doesn't deserve to be rewarded, period.

However, in this case there's a direct link between who developed it and who sells it - and as such I wouldn't mind compensating EA. But I'd probably not be in a hurry in this case.