It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
I'd vote for:
1) C64
2) Amiga
Can't say I have a preference between all the other options, but I would love to see the above two platforms represented on Gog.
1. Panasonic 3DO
2. Sega Genesis
3. Nintendo / Super Nintendo
4. PSX
avatar
Bluekkis: I'm kinda surprised that Dreamcast is on top. Would have expected SNES there. DC has several good titles, no doubt about that but the library is rather small compared to others. I guess the early death of the platform has created bigger nostalgia value for it that usual.
Then again, only reason I didn't vote for DC was my own DC console and library of games that I've bought second hand past few years. :P

The reason is that many platforms listed are actually emulated quite fine, DC seems the nasty one without a real emulator, also it seems you cant find the roms around.
avatar
ZubroPiou: I must say i'm quiet surprised not to see ATARI ST in the list. I don't want to exhume an old war between Amiga fan and Atarists but i think that ATARI should have it's place in the top ! Many great games, decent graphics and fabulous music (yes if you like the old style but if you don't what do you do on GOG ? ;) )
Anyway just wanted to point it out, perhaps for a futur addition to Gog's Catalogue ?

Reason is ATARI ST was a great machine etc, but all the games are amiga ports, having the 2 options amiga-atari could create only a "clone" answer.
At the end the amiga cataolg is a lot bigger, and the best titles at least were for both the machines if not amiga only.
There was interesting audio software surely on ATARI ST but here talking only about games there is not really a reason to go for that platform instead the commodore one.
Post edited June 14, 2010 by gas.gas
1: Dreamcast
2: NeoGeo
3: Arcade
avatar
BobPOW: You are a piece of work.
Oh no, GOG is using the one emulator they like best! How dare they make sure all their games run well on one emulator! If I were them, I'd make all the games run half assed on multiple emulators!
*Gasp* I can't believe we are supposed to buy products that companies created and sold for entire decades! Why can't we pay the people that stole the code and released it on the internet so everybody could pirate it? These thieves should be rewarded for bad behavior!
</sarcasm>

and you are a nastier piece of work. You are accusing me of developing a emulator which is for piracy, which is NOT the case. I am developing it to gain a better insight of the system, plus I like seeing what would happen if we run games basically overclocked, in higher resolutions, without the original system's limitations, etc......I like seeing things outside their comfort zone.
And FYI. Emulators are written based on reverse engineering efforts, like DOSBox. NOT based on "stealing code". I am quite surprised that you are using this logic since to you then DOSBox is illegal....just wow.....
Just because someone develops a tool, does not make them liable for what people do with it. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Like whats done here: DOSBox and ScummVM doesn't make piracy, what people do with it does.
When people rant on about things they have no idea about, they naturally look like idiots. On that note, I would say that you are probably wasting your breath with some of these folks mudlord, some idiots never learn and will continue to be idiots, the whole fallacy that emulation is illegal is a grave misconception by the general public and uninformed individuals who don't bother to research what they are ranting.
For those who would like a crash course, you can refer to this:
http://www.law.northwestern.edu/journals/njtip/v2/n2/3/
Emulation is based upon reverse engineering which is covered under fair use laws, it does not involve "stealing" code. The emulator and code that was used to develop the emulator is the original creation of the developer(s) who invested their time to create these emulators.
Emulation is only considered a gray area because of the ability to play backup copies of commercial games, had emulators been able to only execute homebrew code, they would completely be in the clear legally.
In the link above, please read up on the Sony Vs, Bleem & Connectix cases. Both Connectix and Bleem were commercial emulators, Sony ended up bringing a lawsuit against them and lost miserably. Sony kept countersuing, and lost every time. Connectix and Bleem eventually went under, not because they lost, but because they could not afford the legal fees that were being incurred because Sony kept countersuing.
The U.S. Supreme court deemed emulation a gray area, technically legal or neutral., whatever you prefer. As mentioned emulation is only illegal because it is able to execute backup copies of commercial games.
The EULA isn't a legally binding document, at least not until a specific EULA is contested in court and ruled in favor of the rights holder. Despite the ruling by the Supreme Court that has ruled in favor of emulation, Nintendo has stated in their EULA for ages that emulation is illegal and continues to do so to this day. You would think with emulation being legal that Nintendo wouldn't keep such fud in their EULA, but it is exactly that, fud used as a scare tactic to keep the general populace from considering emulation.
If GoG used emulation to redistribute console or handheld games, they would need to abide by the emulators license, unless they plan to code their own emulator rather than use an existing emulator. This isn't like dealing with scene cracks, there is a difference. Scene cracks use copyrighted code, thus infringes on the intellectual property rights of the the developers/publishers, bypassing drm protection schemes has technically been deemed illegal according to the DMCA. Emulation is achieved through reverse engineering and a lot of coding, emulation doesn't use copyrighted code, and isn't infringing anyone's intellectual property. So unless GoG plans on coding an emulator, they would need to abide by the license of an existing emulator. Emu-devs have legal recourse if it is found that their code is being used illegally.
By using an existing emulator GoG would also be relying on the developers to fix any issues with compatibility, stability, graphics, sound and performance. The only viable option I can see GoG going with is obtaining proper documentation for the hardware that is being emulated and create their own emulator or they can convince Sony, Nintendo, Microsoft, Sega etc.. to code an emulator for them which I doubt would ever happen. :P
The U.S. Supreme court deemed emulation a gray area, technically legal or neutral., whatever you prefer. As mentioned emulation is only illegal because it is able to execute backup copies of commercial games.

What I've quoted above should be as follows, the bolded text to outline my mistake:
The U.S. Supreme court deemed emulation a gray area, technically legal or neutral., whatever you prefer. As mentioned emulation is only gray area because it is able to execute backup copies of commercial games.

Blame it on my lack of sleep, typos and mistakes are common for me when I'm tired. :P
1. SNES >>>>>>>>>>>>>> everything ;)
2. Dreamcast
3. N64
1. Dreamcast
2. (Super)NES
3. NeoGeo
1. Genesis
2. Dreamcast
3. SNES
#1: SNES
#2: N64
#3: Arcade
Post edited June 15, 2010 by Corbeau
avatar
Mr. X2DM: When people rant on about things they have no idea about, they naturally look like idiots. On that note, I would say that you are probably wasting your breath with some of these folks mudlord, some idiots never learn and will continue to be idiots, the whole fallacy that emulation is illegal is a grave misconception by the general public and uninformed individuals who don't bother to research what they are ranting.
For those who would like a crash course, you can refer to this:
http://www.law.northwestern.edu/journals/njtip/v2/n2/3/
Emulation is based upon reverse engineering which is covered under fair use laws, it does not involve "stealing" code. The emulator and code that was used to develop the emulator is the original creation of the developer(s) who invested their time to create these emulators.
Emulation is only considered a gray area because of the ability to play backup copies of commercial games, had emulators been able to only execute homebrew code, they would completely be in the clear legally.
In the link above, please read up on the Sony Vs, Bleem & Connectix cases. Both Connectix and Bleem were commercial emulators, Sony ended up bringing a lawsuit against them and lost miserably. Sony kept countersuing, and lost every time. Connectix and Bleem eventually went under, not because they lost, but because they could not afford the legal fees that were being incurred because Sony kept countersuing.
The U.S. Supreme court deemed emulation a gray area, technically legal or neutral., whatever you prefer. As mentioned emulation is only illegal because it is able to execute backup copies of commercial games.
The EULA isn't a legally binding document, at least not until a specific EULA is contested in court and ruled in favor of the rights holder. Despite the ruling by the Supreme Court that has ruled in favor of emulation, Nintendo has stated in their EULA for ages that emulation is illegal and continues to do so to this day. You would think with emulation being legal that Nintendo wouldn't keep such fud in their EULA, but it is exactly that, fud used as a scare tactic to keep the general populace from considering emulation.
If GoG used emulation to redistribute console or handheld games, they would need to abide by the emulators license, unless they plan to code their own emulator rather than use an existing emulator. This isn't like dealing with scene cracks, there is a difference. Scene cracks use copyrighted code, thus infringes on the intellectual property rights of the the developers/publishers, bypassing drm protection schemes has technically been deemed illegal according to the DMCA. Emulation is achieved through reverse engineering and a lot of coding, emulation doesn't use copyrighted code, and isn't infringing anyone's intellectual property. So unless GoG plans on coding an emulator, they would need to abide by the license of an existing emulator. Emu-devs have legal recourse if it is found that their code is being used illegally.
By using an existing emulator GoG would also be relying on the developers to fix any issues with compatibility, stability, graphics, sound and performance. The only viable option I can see GoG going with is obtaining proper documentation for the hardware that is being emulated and create their own emulator or they can convince Sony, Nintendo, Microsoft, Sega etc.. to code an emulator for them which I doubt would ever happen. :P

I'm not an idiot, you just didn't understand my post. The second paragraph was talking about Mudlord's thoughts on GOG using emulators to run commercial games.
The third paragraph was about "stealing code", AKA copying roms and isos of commercial video games and uploading them onto the internet so the pirates can play them without having to pay anything. This is what most people think of when they think of emulators. Nobody cares about emulators running homebrew.
And I have to laugh at the idea of you making emulators "for the love of video games" when you previously mentioned that you are doing it for money. Yeah, updating old video games to run on modern systems for a paycheck is piracy unless you have the video game companies approval.
Commodore 64
Sega Dreamcast
3DO
...I guess Pricing would be interesting as many of these games would be difficult to sell for $9.99; regardless, beggars can't be choosers.
Thanks!
My Pics are
1.Amiga
2.PSX
3.Sega Dreamcast
1. Nintendo 64
2. Sega Dreamcast
3. NeoGeo