Why do Virtual Console releases always look and play like garbage?
All the VC titles I tried on my Wii look great.
The n64 titles don't play as good because the gamecube/classic controller's stick isn't as precise as the original N64 stick, but it still works for most games that don't require precise aiming.
>>3077684
virtual console is the best n64 emulation you can get pham
Just looks like it's filtered.
They're old games. They all look like garbage.
>>3077693
Virtual Console releases are uprendered at 480p
>paying for emulators
>paying for ROMs
lmao
>>3077718
You can easily pirate VC WADs on the Wii.
Pretty sure the VC versions are more accurate than those you can get on free emulators from the internet.
>>3077718
Don't see the problem with that pic/presentation.
It's Nintendo's property, so they can up and download it everywhere and do what they want. Even if it was dumped by person xy, the IP is still theirs and are allowed to use it and sell again.
>>3077727
>Pretty sure the VC versions are more accurate than those you can get on free emulators from the internet.
Depends on the console being emulated and the emulator. Project 64 1.7 or below is more accurate to N64 than virtual console releases for many games)
There are cycle accurate SNES, NES and Genesis emulators in existence, so VC can't be more accurate than those.
>>3077727
>VC versions are more accurate than those you can get on free emulators from the internet.
Sadly it's the other way around
>>3077737
>Project 64 1.7 or below is more accurate to N64 than virtual console releases for many games)
For example what games?
>>3077684
Because emulators.
>>3077742
Super Mario 64
The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time
and more!
>>3077747
Uh, okay.
I've played Sin and Punishment on the Wii VC and it seems flawless in terms of overall presentation, on PJ64 I got a lot of graphical and layer glitches and stuff.
The problem is that S&P plays a lot better with an actual N64 controller instead of a GC one.
>>3077750
>I've played Sin and Punishment on the Wii VC and it seems flawless in terms of overall presentation, on PJ64 I got a lot of graphical and layer glitches and stuff.
Which version of PJ64 did you use?
And yeah, obviously there are exceptions.
>>3077751
Can't remember, it must have been around 2008 or so.
I also remember emulating Mischief Makers and I wasn't even able to control Marina, graphics were also glitchy with weird layer placements.
>>3077758
Mischief Makers emulates badly on anything. There is no Virtual Console release for it because of that.
Same reason there is no Virtual Console release of Yoshi's Island.
>>3077737
>Project 64 1.7 or below is more accurate to N64 than virtual console releases
no it isn't. kek shill
>>3077684
SM64 looks amazing on my Wii U, even better than it did on the N64, with very vibrant colors.
Looks like you just don't know how to configure your TV.
>>3077735
and this is why IP law is fucked up beyond recognition and needs to die a fiery death
>>3077821
Those screenshots were taken using the same capture card with the same settings.
>>3077807
Actually, it is.
>>3077859
stop shilling your shitty malware bootloader
>>3077880
>stop shilling your shitty malware bootloader
imagine being this delusional.
>>3077684
wii u was confirmed for producing shit colors long ago, should have stuck with pirating wii
>>3077908
That's a screenshot from the original Wii VC.
>>3077684
Gameboy (Color) emulation seems perfectly fine on my 3DS and the games are priced like peanuts.
What am I paying, like one and a half dollar for the convenience? I'm fine with paying that once for a good game.
>>3077718
You're paying for ROMs every time you buy a cartridge you dumb fag.
>>3077727
>Pretty sure the VC versions are more accurate than those you can get on free emulators from the internet.
That's debatable.
Maybe N64 runs better on VC because it's a nigger to emulate on a PC, but most 8bit, 16bit and 32bit emulation on PC runs pretty damn accurately in most cases.
>>3077825
Explain.
>>3077684
>paying for emulation
If you want convenience then download an emulator an roms from the internet, if you want accuracy then buy the real hardware and possibly a flashcart if you don't want to get fucked by the constantly increasing prices of retro games.
>>3077965
It's just data, bunch of bits, it belongs to nobody. It's trivial to duplicate, including copies in different locations. There's nothing scarce or rare about it.
Nintendo produced it, which is cool, and they should be compensated for it, because creating data is a shitload of hard work, but that's where their "rights" end, or should end.
It only gets worse when the "rights owner" has no desire to do anything with their IP. You got a billion of fans for various IPs, on this board and elsewhere, who love the created material, and would love to contribute even more, create new things. Be it levels, mods, remakes, or what have you. But they can't, because some messed up law says "X thought of it first, you must not touch it". X didn't think of the remake, or the mod, or the new level, yet they get a say in it. I call that pretty fucked up.
>>3077727
>Pretty sure the VC versions are more accurate than those you can get on free emulators from the internet.
Nigga, the VC versions ARE emulators made by nintendo themselves but they are so fucking cheap the only thing they care is just the game running on the console. With a emulator you have a lot of more features than the VC release life fixing the resolution, or having save states for games that doesnt have a password/save feature from the NES, Only a dumbass would pay for ROMs
>>3077979
>Only a dumbass would pay for ROMs
>You can easily pirate VC WADs on the Wii.
>>3077983
And emulate them in dolphin.
>>3077684
The left one looks fine, just turn up your TV's brightness.
>>3078070
Brightness doesn't fix it. The palette is still dark and washed out no matter how bright your TV is set. Those screenshots were taken using the same capture card and settings.
>>3077979
You're retarded.
1) VC versions are high quality and professional. They're better than over a decade of dedicated fan-emulation.
2) Nintendo have to pay bills just like anyone else. If everyone was a cheap cunt like you gaming wouldn't exist.
>>3078097
>VC versions are high quality and professional.
Imagine being this delusional.
>>3078114
>getting virus and malware in 2016
you have to be 18 to post on 4chan
>>3077976
>It only gets worse when the "rights owner" has no desire to do anything with their IP.
>>3077684
Because you're playing the WiiU version
>>3077718
Don't blame Nintendo as a whole for what the American subsidiary we suffer under does.
I played Super Mario 64 on VC last night and though it was fine. If you're going to bring up examples of VC games being inferior to emulation, talk about Mario Kart 64, which runs too fast on some courses, or the Camelot sports games, which have some graphical issues. Even so, VC emulation is the only way I can play games like Super Smash Bros and Pilotwings (using an injected WAD) since my computer is a toaster. Personally, I don't pay for any virtual titles, but I don't see why you guys get mad at people that do; some people just don't like breaking the law.
>>3078139
That's a screenshot from an original Wii console using the original SM64 VC release.
>>3077735
Serious question, do you think copyright should never expire?
>>3078149
>talk about Mario Kart 64, which runs too fast on some courses
That was a problem with the original game, some races in multiplayer went at Super Speed
>>3078149
>VC emulation is the only way I can play games like Super Smash Bros and Pilotwings
yeah, ok.
>>3078435
your reading comprehension sucks
Super Mario 64 on Wii U VC looks way too dark, but I fixed it by using the Vivid picture setting on my TV.
>>3078442
he's right tho. buying an n64 plus some games off ebay still costs peanuts. the retro game bubble may have reached vidya stores, but there's still good prices on ebay.
>>3078458
if anon has no n64, they obviously can't use it. They may have reasons for or against buying a machine, but they are entirely irrelevant. The situation is, no n64 around, so carts don't work, simple as that.
>>3078425
I have noticed this playing Choco Mountain on the console version, but it's even worse on VC. It's almost impossible to control your character on DK's Jungle Parkway.
>>3078435
Lol what does this have to do with the rest of the thread. Of course I can play it on console, which would be much more accurate than any form of emulation, but gaming on a console just isn't feasible for me right now (I'm currently studying abroad and brought my Wii for simplicity).
>>3078473
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Nintendo-64-Smoke-Grey-Console-bundle-tested-tight-controller-stick-included-/141935312913?hash=item210c010011:g:VSUAAOSwxvxW7u4x
50 bucks. your argument is invalid.
>>3078481
> your argument is invalid.
download a rom for free
>>3078497
>missing the point this much
that anon was going on about his pc being useless
>>3077737
>There are cycle accurate SNES, NES and Genesis emulators in existence, so VC can't be more accurate than those.
There's a cycle accurate N64 emulator coming soon -- and it even has N64DD emulation!
Certain games play and look better on VC, going back to playing Majora's mask on N64 was more jarring then it should have been after playing the VC release.
>>3077718
>"Why buy it legally when you could just pirate it?"although VC is a waste of money too, games should be played on their native consoles unless they have worthwhile romhacks or greatly benefit from features like savestates and turbo mode
>>3078528
Doesn't the VC release of Majora's Mask crash when entering shops sometimes, a holdover from the Collector's Edition port?
>>3078531
Why?
>>3077694
Why are you here?
>>3078531
second hand market is as harmful as piracy to the developer
>>3078548
I've never heard that before and never had any troubles with my playthrough. The Gamecube copy was poorly optimised and crashed a lot but the VC version was fine from what I could tell. Better than emulator versions as well.
>whites become grey
The same problem with the NES VC
Look at the VC palette on this page:
http://emulation.gametechwiki.com/index.php/Famicom_Color_Palette
>>3078504
buy an old vidya card for 50 bucks instead of shitty used console.
>>3077727
>Pretty sure the VC versions are more accurate than those you can get on free emulators from the internet.
Never played anything on VC but damn near every emulation compilation I've played on consoles end up emulating worse than free emulators on PC since they don't have the benefit of some guy dedicated to constantly working on it for free after it's out.
>>3078385
Doesn't look like it to me, it's been a few weeks since I played both versions but my copies of SM64 but on the VC it wasn't dark as fuck.
>>3078956
>on the VC it wasn't dark as fuck.
is is though. as mentioned before, those screenshots were taken using the same capture card with the same settings. the only thing i did was unplug my n64 and plug in my wii.
>>3077979
>the only thing they care is just the game running on the console.
Tell that to the Star Fox release the pulled just so that they could make sure the game more accurately lags at points where the original did.
>>3077912
get better cables
>>3078981
The cables are fine.
>>3078989
clearly they're not
>>3079007
I have literally the best s-video cables you can buy you stupid fucking cunt.
>>3079019
Doesn't seem like it.
>>3079023
lol
>>3079019
>s-video
>>3077684
Do you need to get your eyes checked or something?
They're arguably one of the best emulations out there.
>>3077807
>>3077737
Yeah sure it is after you grab a fucking million plugins.
Which you don't even mention.
By the default plugins though it still sucks dicks unless you modify it yourself which is a pain in the ass.
>>3079206
>Yeah sure it is after you grab a fucking million plugins.
>Which you don't even mention.
The default pj64 1.7 settings are more accurate to N64 consoles than VC emulators are. You can easily test this by timing loading screens, lag frames, joystick range, color palette, etc. Project 64 will measure closer to N64's numbers than VC does. This is an objective truth.
>>3079294
Now, this is not to imply that project 64 is accurate by any means, just that it is MORE accurate than a majority of VC titles.
>>3077718
When it comes to N64 games, playing the VC wads in Dolphin are sometimes the only way to emulate the games without serious issues. See Pokemon Snap as an example.
>>3079301
Also keep in mind that I'm not referring to pj64 2.x. I'm referring specifically to 1.6 and 1.7.
2.x is more inaccurate than VC, without a doubt.
>>3078097
Tried to contain myself but you broke me.
You can't be this retarded anon. I know you're better than this.
Virtual Console is a way of playing older games on a newer system - in a sense it's backwards compatibility that you can pay for for some select titles. The way it runs ranges from native interpretation to creating an emulator made to interpret that specific title.
They're not always high quality - why? Some games that are put on VC (this applies to MS, Sony and Nintendo) can have changes done to them to change certain things about it (can be regional differences which is absolutely understandable) all the way to full graphical changes and can even go down to running faster or slower depending on how well the interpretation is for X title.
Take MegaMan Legends, pop that fucker into psx2psp and make it an eboot and run it on your modded PSP. It runs just as you expect it - 1:1 a PS1 but faster load times. Now take the PSN release and while it runs fine on PS3, the PSP and Vita versions have awful unavoidable slowdown for some unknown reason (at the moment its unknown). Making a VC release is not always perfect and expertly crafted anon. This may be Sony's example of how you fuck it up but Nintendo and Microsoft (especially Microsoft) are both guilty of doing a shit job at rereleases.
Furthermore - if you bothered looking into it, some VC titles have a preported emulator of choice to work on whatever system you're playing on. Take a Snes title on WiiU's VC and there's a very strong chance (close to but not quite 100%) that they will be using an open source emulator made by the homebrew community to handle the rom, but change things accordingly to make it seamless and seem like a full on new retooled release when it's merely a rom and a ported emulator built for a specific title.
>If everyone was a cheap cunt like you gaming wouldn't exist.
third parties left nintendo for cheaper and greater storage media - CDs
theres a reason Sony won anon.
>>3077976
If you think that's fucked up, Disney now owns the Snow White fairy tale wholesale and is making moves to do the same with Cinderella.
http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=77618057&caseType=SERIAL_NO&searchType=statusSearch
That's right: the story that predates Disney by several centuries is now wholly owned IP of the Disney Corporation.
And no, I don't mean just their version of Snow White, but the name itself and all versions allusions to the story and character in all forms of media excluding written literature. It's fucking fucked up. I really, really hate it.
>>3079405
But isn't that the definition of PUBLIC DOMAIN?
>>3079452
Nope.
No one can make a cartoon or TV show or movie with Snow White as a character or based on the Snow White fairy tale because Disney owns the IP though having originated neither the character nor the story. Unconscionable is what it is.
>>3079452
It's almost the exact opposite of public domain.
>>3077684
Turn your brightness up. Problem solved.
>>3079405
How the hell is that legal?
I'm sure if someone challenged them they'd likely lose but how the fuck did that happen in the first place
>>3078959
Yet it isn't on mine, something is obviously wrong on your end.
>>3077694
the same exact thought went through my head, word for word
>>3079468
Change Snow White to Apple White or whatever. Design a new dress. Problem solved.
>>3079486
Beats the fuck out of me. The way patent and IP laws work is so fucked. Wasn't the original law written with a 20 year limit in mind? That way, whatever kajillions you coulda made on your patent, you'd make in that time and, thereafter, it enters the PD. I don't remember the exact rationale behind it, just that 20 years was meant to be fair to the originator as well as those who wish to build upon the original work.
Personally, I think 20 years is a bit short. 50'd be better.
>>3079505
5 years is already too long (I'm for no protection whatsoever, but I know that's not an option). Look at the marketing efforts companies are going through to sell you their games, movies or books from 2010. There are none. They got over it long ago and are selling you the sequel of the sequel to that junk. That stuff is part of public consciousness and culture by now.
Same with patents. Technology developed in 1998 is still "protected". That stuff is hilariously outdated by now, because tech dev moves at some pace
>>3079405
>If you think that's fucked up
>b-b-b-but X is worse
And that somehow excuses the small scale shit being wrong? We're talking about old video games, and you try to "one up" with an old fairy tale. Just, fuck off.
>>3079551
Okay. But I bet you didn't know that no one likes you. It's true. Look it up.
>>3079545
I see your point, but you must keep in mind that IPs apply to things beyond games and technology. People earn money from television shows, literature, artwork, music, adverts they create etc etc etc for quite a while longer than they do from software and tech.
>>3079309
I've never played anything in VC because I can't justify paying $5 or however much it is to get a copy of something I already own in hard media form when AHRA, the first sale doctrine and Title 17 of the USC guarantee my right as the original purchaser to make or have as many copies of whatever software I'd like, despite Nintendo's assertion that I don't own the software but, rather, am licensed to use the software.
Nintendo v Galoob shows that legal purchasers of Nintendo licensed software are allowed to modify Nintendo licensed software at their discretion, section 109 of Title 17 covers the idea of software as rentable (and the fact that Nintendo has, in the past, officially sanctioned Nintendo-licensed software for rental makes the libraries of all their /vr/ consoles therefore fall under section 109) and other parts of Title 17 (forgot which sections) show that Nintendo-licensed software may be resold and that the new owner of that copy of the software then holds all the rights afforded the original owner. With all this in mind, if you own a hardcopy of the software, you can emulate it legally without paying for it from Nintendo. And you can modify your Wii to do it, also legally. I'm surprised no one has tried to use Nintendo/Galoob to argue against PSPs and Wiis that purposefully brick due to being 'tampered with' when the outcome of that trial guarantees our rights to modify for private use.
>>3077718
top motherfucking kek
>>3079618
Not worth it for the price of a console.
>>3079618
>People earn money from television shows, literature, artwork, music, adverts they create etc etc etc for quite a while longer than they do from software and tech.
And it's the same bullshit. The show has been produced, it's been aired, it's part of the public culture. There's no value, absolutely NO value being created in re-broadcasting it. Hell, in the age of digital data, people could re-broadcast it right after they watched it, technically. What justification is there for producers to make money from something the viewers can do just as easy, if not easier, on their own? Absolutely none. It's a bullshit industry trying to get compensated over and over again, without providing any value in return.
Same with books or music. You wrote it, got paid for your time, and that's it. Once I read it, the thoughts are in my head. Once it's a PDF or FLAC, it can be duplicated with two button presses. Nobody should see a penny for performing this operation, and nobody should be denied performing that operation. It's not risky, it's not harmful, nothing is lost in the process.
>>3079638
>no value in rebroadcasting it
Sure there is. Advertising sales, for one, syndication sales for two and international sales for three.
I disagree with you on this point, but that's okay. Here's something we can both agree on: Turner Broadcasting is fucking evil for trying to argue to the supreme court that using any device or software to record television for your own personal use (which is protected by Title 17), that allows you to skip the adverts is the same as theft and piracy. You are obligated by your contract with Turner Broadcasting (that you agreed to by watching their channels) to watch all commercials they want to show you. Going to the bathroom to take a smash during the break? Well, guess you're now guilty of stealing Rizzoli and Isles, you thief.
>>3079653
>Going to the bathroom to take a smash during the break? Well, guess you're now guilty of stealing Rizzoli and Isles, you thief.
You need to stop using slippery slope fallacies like that if you want to be taken seriously.
>>3079653
>Sure there is. Advertising sales
We're talking different value. I don't give a shit about supporting any company, or how anybody can "make" money off something. There is nothing being created, or added, or contributed, in rebroadcasting that stuff. I fully admit I'm radical in that stance, but I do not believe any company "deserves" to make a profit, or even a living. If the business model is not viable, it needs to disappear. If the business model relies on turning digital data into a scarce resource, it's in conflict with reality. It's only kept "alive" by legal intervention, which is always a terrible basis for any law.
So, no, re-broadcasting something that has been made digitally available to a wide audience, that's, on a technical level, fully capable of performing any broadcasting within their peers, does not add any cultural value, does not produce anything new or creative. Restricting the broadcasting only turns something non-scarce into something scarce, by any means necessary. That's bullshit, no way around that.
>>3079632
>being too poor to afford a wii
>>3079332
what did they do to it to mess it up so badly?
>>3079710
because it's malware bootloader
>>3077727
Maybe VC is a better N64 emulator, maybe not.
But the PS1 emulator Sony uses is clearly worse than Mednafen.
>>3078647
>3ds has better palette than wii
How does that happen?
>>3077737
>Project 64 1.7 or below is more accurate to N64 than virtual console releases for many games
>>3079670
Fuck you're dumb. It was in response as to why nobody has sued for bricked consoles. You're not getting McDonald's money because your video game stopped working. There's no significant damages and they could argue that updates work fine on original firmware/software and any problems were caused by the users modifications being incompatible.
>>3079710
They prioritized "improving" the gameplay experience over making it accurate to N64.
>>3079496
No. Plug your N64 in after playing SM64 on your Wii for a while and you'll see the difference if you aren't fucking blind. This is common knowledge among everyone who plays SM64 a lot, speedrunners in particular.
The dark VC palette has also been measured objectively:
http://emulation.gametechwiki.com/index.php/Famicom_Color_Palette
You're in denial.
>>3080007
>http://emulation.gametechwiki.com/index.php/Famicom_Color_Palette
Can confirm that my Wii U NES games seem to look the way this wiki describes a "Wii VC" palette to be. Punch out!, Super Mario Bros.2 and Super Mario Bros 2. USA are all affected. Strangely enough, the Mega Man games ARE NOT affected and have the normal palette. I tested all 6 and they all were fine.
This isn't so bad, as I got Punch Out and both Super Mario Bros. 2 games for free with club nintendo coins.
>>3077684
Is the left one supposed to look worse than the right one?
>>3080217
The left one looks worse than the right one, yes.
>>3079661
Look it up. They actually argued that in court. Bathroom and everything.
>i guess we can forgive going to the bathroom every now and then, but as a viewer, your side of the contract is to watch the commercials we show you along with the programming we otherwise provide for free
Seriously.
Look.
It.
Up.
To be clear, that's a paraphrase and not a direct quote. All the same, the point was argued.
>>3077976
They are doing something with their property. They sell it on the vc.
>>3079405
literally the jews
>>3080226
I can see if you were used to the game looking like it does on the right and that's what you expected then it would look worse. Just looking at them side by side, I think they're about equal with the left one slightly clearer.
Mostly it looks like on the left the contrast is turned down, that's something that can be adjusted on most TVs though if it bothered you that much.
>>3080289
>I think they're about equal
might wanna get your eyes checked or learn what "equal" means.
>>3080294
I mean equal in terms of how good they look. Both are pretty ugly, but at least the one on the left is a little less garish.
Pretty sure this bullshit has something to do with seizures and legal obligations
And this has been going on since the gamecube gameboy player, same shit with the colors. And I'm not even mentioning the fucking bilinear filter they apply to the scaling.
Nintendo just treats their old games like fucking trash.
If you want to make this the default, fine I get it, but give me the option of turning it off, otherwise I will never give a single penny for these nerfed """"""""ports"""""""". I already have buyer's remorse for the gameboy player, if only I knew.
>>3077684
Well the 3DS vc is ok...
>>3080313
3ds VC is pretty good, you have option for 1:1 with no filters and palettes are correct(although b&w gameboy games are forced to be b&w, and theres no SGB enhancements for games like DK '94), and then apparently pokemon games has trading/multiplayer too.
And then for gameboy player theres homebrew app called 'game boy interface' which fixes all the problems the original disc has(but you need SD media launcher or modded GC with burned disc to run it)
>>3078567
as someone who likes how old games look, I agree with him. they're technically "garbage", therefore what is the point of trying to get to look as "nice" as possible? it's like if you listened to lo-fi indie rock or black metal and absolutely needed them to be in FLAC. I really don't see the point at all.
>>3080437
>3ds VC is pretty good, you have option for 1:1 with no filters and palettes are correct
Oh nice, I just assumed it was the same as the rest
I'm happy that at least we have the 3DS, but why the hell is the 3DS any different though. I don't understand what's Nintendo's reasoning behind this, if there's even any.
>>3080458
incompetence
>>3080480
I doubt it's that simple, there's some purpose behind this, and my theory still goes that it's because of epilepsy triggered by vibrant colors, and they just want to cover their asses. Don't forget Nintendo had that Porygon incident before.
Besides the 3DS' colors are still different from RGB, it's just not as bad as the Wii U
>>3079468
>No one can make a cartoon or TV show or movie with Snow White as a character or based on the Snow White fairy tale
Do you ever actually fact-check the retarded shit you say or are you so fucking in love with your own voice that you never even stop to think?
>>3080452
I feel the same about fancy HQ x 999 antialias filters. Just looks wrong.
>>3080249
It's not their property. It's a bunch of bits and bytes, trivial to duplicate by anyone. And they are denying people to make new levels using that engine, or new games using the setting, despite both of these things being publicly available and part of culture. If they want to re-sell it, they're welcome to. If they want protection for that, they can fuck off.
>>3080458
>I don't understand what's Nintendo's reasoning behind this
Different displays have different output curves. So you have two options when reproducing output from display A on display B. Either you keep the exact RGB values, and throw them at the screen, regardless of how they look, or you adjust the values so they look equivalent on both displays.
Might also be a reason for the difference in OPs pic. One is capturing colors targeting a CRT, the other is capturing colors targeting an HDTV. Both have different response curves to RGB values. The capture card is bypassing the actual display, leading to a difference. The more useful comparison might be a N64 on an old CRT vs. the Wii on a modern HDTV. Note that this does not mean either output is better or worse. Just that they do it differently, and if one is a reference display, the other needs color correction.
>>3080627
Do you even think Nintendo would have ever made the game in the first place if they weren't able to control everything about it, as if it were their own property? (which it technically is under the law, despite how you believe things should be)
>>3080498
That movie came out 4 years ago. That guy you're replying, when exactly did he say Disney was able to finally secure the rights?
>>3080656
Do I give a fuck? If they're too scared of dealing with the digital reality, is the correct way to pat them on the head and give them protection laws, or tell them to fuck off?
>>3080627
>It's not their property. It's a bunch of bits and bytes, trivial to duplicate by anyone.
Then you deny the concept of ownership of information, which is the foundation of any digital economy. By your line of reasoning, all video games should be free, and charging for them is wrong.
>>3080729
>Then you deny the concept of ownership of information
ownership? I deny that for publicly available information. If it can be seen/heard/played back/whatever, it's out in the open, trivial to reproduce, etc. I do not deny that for private information. Stuff that never leaves anybody's hands unencrypted.
>which is the foundation of any digital economy
At the moment, yes, and that's bullshit. There's no value in information. There is value in production of that information. Bits don't randomly arrange to form a game, that's hard and harsh work. Once they're arranged though, making an exact copy is stupidly simple and painless, and not worth anything.
>all video games should be free, and charging for them is wrong.
wrong, wrong, and dead wrong. I'm all for compensation for creation. In fact, I consider that more important than anything else regarding information. Brainpower, and human time is basically the online scarce resource when it comes to information, and it's required to produce (the initial) information. That should be compensated, and fully. Once the data has been produced though, not a single cent for copies, never ever.
It's a common jump though, that I encounter, that people immediately assume someone needs to be paid for reproduction. I can press ctrl-c, ctrl-v just fine, thanks. Nobody needs to see a cent for that. I could probably not write a big game though, and I consider it perfectly valid to pay skilled people to create one.
>>3080737
Not him, but you seem completely unaware of the concept of intellectual property.
>>3077684
turn your gamma up shithead
>>3080737
So we need to pay the publishers and developers in full for their work... but not by paying for copies of their work. So where does the money come from, Einstein? I can't think of any viable business model that fulfills these requirements. Wait, actually, kickstarter. Would you be happy if we had to kickstart every new video game, but then they were all free?congrats you killed video games
>>3078097
Then why does Solar in SF64 look like twitching jello? They couldn't even animate the lava correctly.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ObzL2ZP6mi0
>>3080759
>So we need to pay the publishers
not really, they've been feeding off the whole thing for the longest time. Not much to publish when making it available is trivial.
>So we need to pay the developers in full for their work
Yeah, definitely, at least if we value what they do
>So where does the money come from, Einstein?
Not from copies. Not that hard, is it?
>Would you be happy if we had to kickstart every new video game, but then they were all free?
I do assume(d) that this is how kickstarter for software projects would work. That they dare ask for pay to distribute the finished piece of software, is kind of a letdown. Of course it's perfectly fine to pay for physical goods created through kickstarter. Anyway, beyond kickstarter you have patreon and donations, early access. Note that I use kickstarter and patreon as shorthands for the concepts. I don't care much about the specific services, there are probably better alternatives for pure information production.
>congrats you killed video games
congrats, you're shitposting. There are a handful examples out there of game dev working on crowdfunding, donations, patreons and similar concepts. It's of course a smaller group than what's currently being published, but you know what's currently being published? Utter shit. No heart, no dedication, just pure financial gain, at the expense of the gamer. That's not gaming, that's an insult to gaming, and I won't miss it if it dies. The fact that projects out there exist that work, without putting a price tag on copies, is all I need to know.
>>3080737
Okay then riddle me this. If once something is made, it should be readily and freely duplicatable by anyone then what is the incentive to do something in the first place?
Let's say hypothetically you have made a great game that could well be so wildly successful that in today's world you would be able to sell a million copies and make lots of money. But you're not famous, with no one to vouch for it how do you get compensated for it? If you release it, it's free. No one's going to give you money for it, they'll just make their own copy. How would you monetize the effort you put into the game in that case?
Flip scenario. Let's say Peter Molyneux wants to make a game. He says he's been on his meds and has a wonderful idea for a simple but brilliant game that will take the world by storm. How does that happen? Does he ask a publisher to fund him making the game? Does he crowd source people to fund making the game?
In either case, why would anyone give him money? The publisher can fund him, but where's he going to see the return on his investment if as soon as it's released, the game is essentially free. And what incentive is there to crowd fund something? Sure it might be great, but it's Molyneux there's as good a chance it'll be a steaming pile. Might as well just wait and see, if it's good then it's free and if it's bad then you didn't waste money.
How do you see getting around problems like that?
>>3077684
I have the virtual console version and it looks like the screenshotting on the right. Stop making shit up.
>>3080226
the left is better it's not pixelated. get glasses pham
>>3080773
>what is the incentive to do something in the first place?
Not money. You got no hobbies? You never feel the desire to create something, just because it's cool, and you can say "I made that"? For some people that urge is stronger, and what they do is bigger, but same thing. I honestly do not understand people that preface any kind of creation with "what do I get in return?"
>How would you monetize the effort you put into the game in that case?
What you produced is your ad, that shows you're able to do stuff. If you want to be paid to do it again, or better, ask people for the money to do it. From there on, it's up to you, if you need the compensation, or if you need to create.
>Does he ask a publisher to fund him making the game? Does he crowd source people to fund making the game?
sure
>why would anyone give him money?
Because they have faith in his proposal, evaluate it as doable, or base it on their previous experience with him, because they want to support the creation of something.
>The publisher can fund him, but where's he going to see the return on his investment if as soon as it's released
So you noticed that publishers are useless, well done
>And what incentive is there to crowd fund something?
small investment by the individual, may lead to something being created that didn't exist before. You know, how the whole crowd funding thing works already.
>but it's Molyneux there's as good a chance it'll be a steaming pile
So give him less, or nothing, if you're worried about that? Someone might have a few bucks burning a hole in their pocket, and they don't mind the chance it'll be a turd.
>Might as well just wait and see, if it's good then it's free and if it's bad then you didn't waste money.
That's how all crowdfunding platforms work
>How do you see getting around problems like that?
You're seeing problems that aren't there, because you place financial gain above all. That's not the reality of artists, and not the reality of consumers.
>>3080772
You talk real pretty but you've barely actually said anything.
I need you to explain this in more detail, assuming you've actually thought it out. If you haven't, I'm going to break down what you've said already.
We can't pay for copies, since that goes against your vision of an IP-less future. Developers therefore can't be reimbursed *after* making their software. So we have to fund their projects in advance.
You propose a model where entire companies are publicly, voluntarily funded. You want to remove their primary revenue source and replace it with a system whereby we directly pay for game development.
Companies must then be fully accountable to us. They can no longer develop with private funds, because amassing profits is difficult when nobody is allowed to purchase your works. Every proposal must be public, so we have a chance to finance it.
Essentially, you've destroyed the conventional concept of a company, and replaced it with a radical idea that could never sustain a company, let alone an industry. When I said you killed videogames it wasn't shitposting, because this kind of model is impossible on a large scale, and would eliminate everything you know and appreciate about how video games are made. You feel strongly about this, but an economy where no one pays for copies of software is going top need a lot more thought than this. Go ahead, surprise me.
>>3080791
>Companies must then be fully accountable to us
Not necessarily. It's perfectly fine to give someone money and give them the autonomy to decide what to do with it, especially in a creative profession.
>Every proposal must be public, so we have a chance to finance it.
Not necessarily. A company with a good track record can ask for blanket funding, if they're that cool
>because this kind of model is impossible on a large scale
Because we have tried it? Would you not, give a couple devs you trust a buck every week, and get all their games "for free"? Would you avoid spending that buck, knowing that it might lead to that dev going under? How much is that buck worth to you? You pay $60 for a game based on a shady review and hype. You don't think something is off with that picture?
>but an economy where no one pays for copies of software is going top need a lot more thought than this
it's already a reality in quite a few parts of the industry. Look at Red Hat's business model, for example
>>3080789
>Not money. You got no hobbies? You never feel the desire to create something, just because it's cool, and you can say "I made that"?
Indeed I do have hobbies, passionate ones. But I'm also a realist. If I can make money doing what I'm passionate about, then I'm able to spend more of my time doing that and less of my time doing other work to pay bills.
Pic related is something I've done, but what you're seeing doesn't do the actual painting justice at all. But people like you are one of the reasons that in order to see it or my other work you would have to come to a show and see it physically.
>>3080818
>what you're seeing doesn't do the actual painting justice at all
So you're not talking about a digital product at all
>>3080789
>Not money. You got no hobbies? You never feel the desire to create something, just because it's cool, and you can say "I made that"? For some people that urge is stronger, and what they do is bigger, but same thing. I honestly do not understand people that preface any kind of creation with "what do I get in return?"
You're talking about a multibillion dollar industry. do you know how retarded you sound when you say "lol but why can't they just do it for free tho???"
They could. It would result in the dissolution of every video game company ever made, whereafter the devs would fuck off to make 2D hobby projects, for free. And all your favourite game series' would die in an instant. Literally all of them.
>>3080813
I don't know how much more clear I can make this. Crowdfunding as a sole source of revenue isn't compatible with the companies we know today. I won't call it impossible, but the companies would have to be absolutely fucking gutted. The investors would never allow it.
>it's already a reality in quite a few parts of the industry. Look at Red Hat's business model, for example
Redhat makes money by selling its software to other large companies. Same as windows, similar to Mac OS. This is the accepted business model for operating systems, and it has almost nothing to do with video games.
>>3080828
The super high res photos displayed on a large screen bring it all out, but that's what I'm saying. Because people like you would then assume it as your own and something you can replicate, print copies of, change etc, I would never release anything that high quality.
>>3080829
He's one of the most naive people I've ever seen, it's pretty astounding.
>>3080829
>You're talking about a multibillion dollar industry
most of it comically inflated
>It would result in the dissolution of every video game company ever made
What's with the hyperbole?
>And all your favourite game series' would die in an instant. Literally all of them.
If they're not viable, they don't have much rights to exists. But you know another side effect of all this? Fans, that are enthusiastic about "their favorite game series", could group together, pool some money, hire someone skilled, and get their next new game. Can't do that currently, IP is gonna fuck you over.
>Crowdfunding as a sole source of revenue isn't compatible with the companies we know today
You say that like it's a problem. It's really not.
>The investors would never allow it.
What right do they have to cripple the nature of digital data, just to get their profit? none, simple as that.
>Redhat makes money by selling its software to other large companies
They aren't. All their software is freely available and free to modify.
>Same as windows, similar to Mac OS
Windows is selling licenses, Apple is bundling them with hardware (physical items, that can not be trivially duplicated)
>it has almost nothing to do with video games.
Red Hats model is that they sell support and QA. Or in other words, you pay them, so they develop, that they improve code, fix bugs, add features. Everything they produce is instantly open sourced and available to the public. They are paid to create, not to copy. That has everything to do with video games
>>3080830
You have so little faith in your art, that you're a) afraid a digital reproduction comes close to the physical original, and b) that you think the digital reproduction can not act as advertising, making people want to commission you? Your loss, I suppose. I'll let you in on a secret: The people that are satisfied with a digital reproduction are not your customers. They are curious, but not interested enough to buy from you, so there's no loss there. Meanwhile the people that have the funds and interest, will have no idea your art is out there, unless they go actively seek it.
>>3080839
>most of it comically inflated
That's your opinion, it's as big as it is because people like the products being made. Which would be impossible under your model.
Crowdfunding enough money for something like Witcher 3 or Metal Gear Solid V even with today's structure would be nearly impossible. In a world where the game would become free forever on day one it would simply never happen.
>>3080845
I sell other art digitally, and do illustration work I like being able to choose when and where I sell it.
>>3080849
>it's as big as it is because people like the products being made
Debateable. It's not like there are many alternatives, and looking at their marketing budgets, their biggest focus is in getting people to pay for something on hype, before they realize the actual quality.
>Which would be impossible under your model.
That's one of the good aspects, yeah. Suddenly the unviable business would stand out like a sore thumb, and be corrected for quickly.
>Crowdfunding enough money for something like Witcher 3 or Metal Gear Solid V even with today's structure would be nearly impossible
Star Citizen says what? Witcher 1 was on a budget, Witcher 3 was on an inflated budget. What's wrong with keeping things sane?
>>3080858
>Debateable.
That's not a debate I feel like having, but I like many of the games these days and I don't think I'm alone.
>Star Citizen says what?
Yeah and if the game, and every game was going to be free the day it was released you think gamers would all put in their money just out of good faith? That's putting a lot more faith in them than they've historically earned.
But then, I like the publisher model. So we really have nothing to talk about.
>>3080498
As >>3080661 said, that film dates from before Disney was awarded ownership of the IP (early 2014). Right after Disney staked that claim, Universal Pictures, which made Snow White and the Huntsman, announced that their planned sequel to SWatH would omit Snow White as a character altogether.
That sequel is set for release next month, by the way.
Now, I'd like to take the opportunity to belittle you for accusing me of not checking my facts before making my claims because you've clearly failed to do so yourself, you fucking cock-gargling mongoloid. :^)
>>3080446
Funny you'd suggest that I do so when I've neither mentioned nor even alluded to either term in any of my posts.
As for this argument going on right now about how creative earns money and stays viable as a business, this seems all very complex to me and I don't understand either side of it. Could someone break down each position more simply, please?
>>3080872
>you think gamers would all put in their money just out of good faith?
No. I'd think gamers would put in their money. Maybe you'll understand the difference.
>>3080885
Look at the history of gamers as consumers. By and large, any time they can get away without paying for something, they don't. You're extremely naive if you think enough gamers would put money in up front to fund games on the level of Witcher 3 or MGS V. Especially if they know that regardless of whether they help fund it or not, it will be theirs to play for free the moment it's released.
>>3078421
We're living in a corporate world. Ideas will never enter the public domain and become part of our culture, they are just products to exploit.
>>3080894
>Look at the history of gamers as consumers
I do, and I see donation based games doing well, I see humble bundles and kickstarters
>By and large
The majority is irrelevant. What counts is whether the involved minority is enough to support it.
>You're extremely naive if you think enough gamers would put money in up front to fund games on the level of Witcher 3 or MGS V
again, Star Citizen. Also, I don't think MGS is a good example, blowing a shitload of budget on the movie aspects (cutscenes, motion capturing, voice acting). I can do without that filler. Don't know much about Witcher 3, beyond it being considerably more expensive than Witcher, and by a non-trivial group considerably less liked. Makes me think that money was not well spent either.
>Especially if they know that regardless of whether they help fund it or not, it will be theirs to play for free
that's a big if. An unfunded project is unfunded
>>3079332
Your info is outdated. The problem with 2.1 was the default settings... The settings have been improved in 2.2.
Latest version of Project64 is more accurate than any previous version.
>>3077718
I'll admit that it's a little messed up if they're literally stealing someone else's work (IP/copyright laws make sense when we're talking about huge-ass companies), and re-selling it without reimbursing whoever did the porting job.
But then again, I'm a lazy fuck and VC titles on my 3DS are mighty convenient even if I don't always think Nintendo deserves my money for them. I'm all for paying for games, but when it comes to VC NES titles Nintendo can fuck right off. You've already milked that cow to death, go make something new you lazy cunts.
Not one of you faggots is going to mention that input lag on Wii U VC games. Really? That's the reason I quit buying them. I can deal with the darker colors but the input lag is seriously pathetic.
>>3080818
Im just gonna jump in and say that as someone who is trying to learn. Game development id rather make money to produce more games than produce games to make money off of it... It feels more fufilling...But i mean im not even sure that has anything to do with what you guys are arguing about so take that as you will...
>>3081051
I havent used wii u vc yet so i cant rly give an opinion on that.
>>3078421
Nintendo still does things with the Mario IP, so their claim on the copyright is valid. It's not like they're Disneying the laws.
>>3081559
and just because Nintendo does something with it, nobody else may? Mario is a bit of a cultural icon nowadays, known to everyone and everything. Yet only one entity is allowed, legally, to do something with that? It should be perfectly legal for anybody and everybody out there to make Mario related material, including for profit, if they manage.
>>3081729
>A company's mascot and icon shouldn't be theirs to use because I'm a failure at life and can't think of anything original!
Legit sad, son.
>>3079952
by the 3DS's famicom emulator being newer than the wii's?
>>3080437
>but you need SD media launcher or modded GC with burned disc to run it
if you have a homebrewed wii or other way of putting something on your memory card, you can use a save exploit for SSBM to run it
>>3080452
>therefore what is the point of trying to get to look as "nice" as possible?
accuracy, or an output as close to how it is made on the console as possible
>>3077979
>made by nintendo themselves
outsourced to another developer and made using nintendo's documentation =/= "nintendo themselves"
>>3081809
Nintendo has the final say in it being released under their name, and in turn, the full responsibility for the quality, or its lack
I've noticed that too with Megaman X2, not fire emblem, though.
>>3080667
We know you're entitled to work that isn't yours and has nothing to do with you. Doesn't mean Nintendo should just give you all their old games for free because you said so. They own the rights, they have the right to do what they want with it.
>>3081968
>They own the rights
Based on bullshit laws, that are not rooted in reality. They have the legal rights, and I choose to question, or reject their legality, simple as that.
>>3082172
>I don't want it to be legal so it shouldn't be!!!!!
Shit son, you're turbo retard today.
Just make up your own character, you don't need it to be Mario.
>>3082179
>you don't need it to be Mario
That was just an example. Any IP works. Technically any fangame or fanfiction or other derivation is illegal and/or can not be used for profit (fair use). That law you unquestionably support is making it illegal for people, many people, to create. And the only justification for it is profit for a select few. That's simply not a useful foundation for a law.
>>3082191
>That law you unquestionably support is making it illegal for people, many people, to create.
No, it makes it illegal to create using other peoples' protected work, but you seem to think that means literally anything because you're a fucking retard who doesn't understand how to create something on your own.
Nothing is stopping you from making your own unique property and copyrighting it.
>>3082209
>it makes it illegal to create using other peoples' protected work
A questionable protection. You've been on /vr/ before? Ever seen threads on what games people would love to see remade, re-released or sequel'd? There are hundreds, thousands of dedicated fans, that understand their game's mechanics better than the devs do (Sega, Sonic), that understand their game's lore better than the devs do (any ol' rpg), that are skilled in coding, arts, writing, that are in it 24/7. They can not create what they want to create, by law. Fan projects have been shut down repeatedly, because the "owner" of something that's been in the head of the developers, told them to. You tell me where the harm in creation is, what harm does that law try to prevent? The only "harm" you can point out is profit, profit for an action that anybody can perform on their own, without difficulty. You have nothing.
>making your own unique property
considering I reject the concept of IP, this won't get far
>>3082213
>considering I reject the concept of IP, this won't get far
Because you're a fucking moron who wants to make money on other peoples' work.
Tell me, what would you do if I walked off with your TV? You're obviously fine with taking peoples work, so it should be okay for me to take the result of yours.
>>3077735
The INES header format is someone's intellectual property though. If Nintendo are distributing a version of Super Mario Bros. with the INES header, they are illegally selling someone else's work.
It'd be like if Nintendo decided to start selling rom hacks like Kaizo Mario, without asking the creators for permission.
>>3082219
>make money on other peoples' work
Their work is the creation of something, which should be paid. Their work is not the reproduction of something, which should not be paid.
>if I walked off with your TV?
not IP
>taking peoples work
The data does not disappear and gets not damaged, I only duplicate it
>>3082224
>not IP
Still the product of their work. You want their product without doing the work, you should be willing to give up the product of yours for free.
>>3082227
Get a load of this faggot
>>3082227
>you should be willing to give up the product of yours for free
If I could make a physical copy of something at no cost to myself, sure, why not? If THEY could make a physical copy of something I have, at no cost to myself, sure, why not?
Notice something? With data, and information, reproduction is effectively free, and does not damage the original or the copy. That's the major difference to physical objects, and that's what makes their reproduction worthless. The only value is their creation. I can't copy what's not there, and neither can anybody else.
>>3082227
>give up the product
Just to emphasize again: they are not giving up their product. They can keep their copy of the information they created, make further copies, move them around or keep them in the same place. The ability to duplicate losslessly is extremely fundamental to digital data
>>3080818
I've seen this posted a couple times before.
Just thought I'd say that.
>>3082239
You're trying way too fucking hard here, m8. You need to be more subtle to get much good at this trolling thing.
>>3082263
> le your trolling because I don't like that you see a point in copyright law and are telling me peoples' hard work should be protected from failures like me!
Whatever you say, tardo.
Whether you like it or not, protection of IP is absolutely necessary because of people like you who want to make money off other peoples' work.
>>3082263
Look who is talking here m8. You are the every embodiment of a "gibs me dat" entitled millennial.
>>3082289
Two different people there, mister special snowflake "give me everything" millennial idiot.
>>3082302
Not buying it. Pics or you're full of shit.
>>3082331
Only a child thinks there could only possibly be two people on the internet. I guess that explains your viewpoint that people shouldn't be allowed to protect their intellectual property.
>>3082331
>>3082347
Yep, full of shit. Thread hidden.
>>3082361
What's the matter, babbly, can't handle being proven wrong?
>>3082373
>he took an actual picture of his screen
>>3082681
>He was pre-empting "photoshopped" claims
>>3080903
I still think you're essentially relying on altruism to run the game industry and it's very naive.
>>3082257
Yeah, that and one other are the only things of mine I will post here because it's not something I have up officially anywhere so it can't be googled back to the real me. Just a bit of old standing 4chan paranoia.
>>3081270
I think that's overall the better way to go. But I feel as a creative person that I should have the freedom to sell or profit from a creation of mine as I see fit.
>>3082681
>he's actually retarded.
You autists screech like children at screenshots because you think only one person in the world other than your lard ass exists outside his mom's basement, and obviously they photoshop their screenshots in some grand conspiracy to make you think people exist.
>>3082734
You stupid cunt you can fake a photograph of a screen by just changing the code on the website first
>>3082938
lol the point of taking a photo was to mock you retards who are convinced people care so much that they shop all their screenshots.
>>3082946
lol haha :)
>>3082705
>I still think you're essentially relying on altruism to run the game industry
To some degree yes. I've seen enough examples of it working, that I'm willing to accept some developers going under that aren't able to adapt
>industry
Makes you think, doesn't it? Certainly makes me think. I'd rather games be rooted in creativity and curiousity, instead of plain "production" of disposable goods
>>3082707
>I feel as a creative person that I should have the freedom to sell or profit from a creation of mine as I see fit
Sure go for it. Just don't expect the law to step in and limit the freedom of many others. I'm not even joking, because there are plenty examples out there of people selling what's available "for free" elsewhere. They're just providing a bit of cleanup, support, packaging, convenience, or additional value, things like that. Being able to sell something, does not rely on it being exclusive.
>>3082938
>litterelley ever1 litterelley chainches screanshotes bacaus ime an ensacure faggat!
Maybe one day you won't be a retarded faggot, but that won't be today.
