New news for the skeptics-


http://steamcommunity.com/app/364840/discussions/0/523890528711365888/

Ah yeah it is only different because your opinion needs it to be. They're the same bloody thing, BOY!

DOS emulation really isn't all that hard. I'd even say that it's a bit easier to use DOSbox than something like ePSXe.

Somebody on reddit asked them for the source code and they supplied it-

https://www.reddit.com/r/emulation/comments/3bmjlu/steam_rerelease_of_playstation_1_game_n2o/csnvne1

But of course, mate! Pirate AND pc master race. Double standard? Hardly. Multiple standard, i would say, if there ever existed such a thing...

Actually ScummVM is not an emulator, it's a game engine (or rather a collection of game engines) that's capable of imitating a variety of old engines and custom code is required for (almost?) each supported game. In principle it works largely like a source port (apparently some of the original developers even supplied the project with the original source codes technically making at least parts of ScummVM a source port) and runs the games natively on the host system. That's also one of the reasons why the games may differ a bit from the original releases. ScummVM is widely classified as a "game engine recreation".

And KiNgBrAdLeY7 is also right concerning the complexity of the emulation, as long as the source code isn't available it's the software that's really the problem and the reason why most emulators require a dump of the original hardware's ROM and are thus not suitable for re-releasing old games (as the hardware manufacturer needs to agree / get a piece of the cake). The DOSBox team coped without using any of the original code/data/whatever, that's why it's a very different scenario.

That's certainly what it sounds like you're saying - commercial emulation of PC games is good but console emulation shouldn't be commercialised? Why?

I'm not even making an argument for OR against piracy, I just think the double standard is ridiculous. If you're going to pirate SNES games then pirate DOS games too.

NES, SNES, Master System, Megradrive, all of these can be emulated without any copyrighted bios required.

I remember using emulation when I was 14 or so, with Nesticle and a Genesis emulator back when the systems were still relevant. Of course I had no money so there's my reason for doing it. (Naturally later when I had the money and games in question, I couldn't save because the batteries in the roms were dead >:( )

The only real way I can think to justify not commercializing emulated roms is either because they were sold as cartridge form and the companies made their profits by that physical means. It probably cost them a dollar to produce (the cartridge) and sold it for $60+, all in all the gaming companies up at the time were making money almost hand over fist, the prices/practices set by Atari years and years ago.

The second reason could be emulation could be considered modding. There are patches for games (Mario brothers, Megaman, etc) that entirely change the layout of the game, new levels or plot or even mechanics that would work on the hardware just fine. You can only access those if you can get the entire game and then patch it.

Third is emulation is sorta a niche hacker thing. Someone skilled could get a genesis game working on the PC, but everyone else would be unable to duplicate it (even if it's 'extract this zip and hit exe!'), so it's always been this space for translators, fans, and more technical computer users who would use them. 98% of users today don't even know how to open or modify a ini file, or make/extract a zip file (my girlfriend is among them). Yes you can download roms and emulators, but fewer than 5% of the market is going to do that, more likely they are more interested in newer titles and not older ones making the whole issue redundant.

Emulation is only free if you use free emulators and already own your games. I've paid for good emulators because I support developers and am not a leech in the software industry, contributing all of nothing while taking everything I can get. I hope bigger companies see that there IS money in emulation and get better funded programmers making emulators. Or that the original companies themselves release emulators. My biggest fear is it will all go the way of Sega, only releasing packaged items with little to no options and no way to plug in games we already own. That's when it sucks and just becomes a money grab.
I can run DC, GC and PS2 games on my PC quite smoothly.

Don't you also mean Sony as well? (PSN)

Yessir (ma'am?).

It sounds a little like Bleemcast.

http://segaretro.org/Bleemcast!

Yeah, I was playing emulated SNES games in the late 90s for precisely the same reasons as you so I know where you're coming from.
You're wrong about the cartridges though, they were pretty expensive to produce and had way lower profit margins than discs. Besides, if you want to make the argument that the games already made their money, then the same logic applies to all the old games GOG sells.

Yeah, I've played plenty of ROM hacks and fan translations and an emulator is usually the only way to play those (there are hardware devices which allow this but they're kind of obscure). I don't see why the existence of the ROM hacking scene means that companies shouldn't sell their old console games packaged with emulators any more than the existence of mods means that GOG shouldn't sell old DOS games packaged in an emulator. I just don't see a difference.

Why is everyone so certain that these folks didn't license the rights to distribute the rom image from Sony?

Software you wrote? If you wrote all the code and call it under the GPL but don't provide it, you're not honoring the license but it doesn't matter because you're not going to sue yourself.

If it's software other people wrote that you modified or added to, then you're almost certainly violating the GPL.

The required terms of providing the source upon request are really quite demanding, and I'm pretty certain you aren't planning to be sure to provide it for a period of 3 years after the last availability of the software. It's very difficult for an individual to meet the requirements of the "upon request" branch of the availability terms in the licensing.

By contrast, simply packing the source in the distributable is so easy, that anyone who doesn't go that route is silly.