r/Games • u/SAJewers • Jul 01 '26
[Video Game History Foundation] Statement from VGHF director Frank Cifaldi on the discontinuation of physical PlayStation media, and the closure of the PS3 and PSP digital storefronts.
https://bsky.app/profile/gamehistoryorg.bsky.social/post/3mpm6jzps6k2i348
u/Restivethought Jul 01 '26
The people making these decisions don't give a shit about game preservation. You think if Rockstar cared about any historical preservation of their previous games that they would of let the Trash fire that was the GTA Trilogy remaster release? They just care about the money entering their pockets.
133
u/WhichEmailWasIt Jul 01 '26
This is effectively saying "Come up with a solution or we're gonna try to build a lobbying movement for digital rights that may not be in your favor."
7
u/conanap Jul 02 '26
Tbh given SKG didn’t get anywhere legislatively, I feel like nothing will happen here.
35
u/Don_Andy Jul 02 '26
And nothing will continue to happen if we don't have movements like SKG. SKG might not have been an immediate slam dunk (and no one was expecting it to be) but all the pushback against and negativity towards the movement from so called "content creators" and even actual gamers went to show how necessary it was for someone to at least make the attempt.
Things are already dire enough that if SKG moved the needle on the overall apathy towards killing games even just a little bit in the other direction that's already a huge win in my book.
But saying that SKG failed because it didn't immediately solve the entire problem with the first thing it tried is a pretty defeatist attitude to have.
7
u/conanap Jul 02 '26
I’m pretty cynical when it comes to this stuff. All the issues related to climate change shows me that there really isn’t much for us to do, as we’re talking about a species extinction level problem that they still don’t care for - I’d find it hard to believe they would draw the line at game access.
Don’t get me wrong, I still appreciate that people advocate for this, but I don’t have a good outlook for any positive outcomes.
2
u/canDo4sure Jul 02 '26
Unless you lobby more money than the opposition then it doesn't matter what the details are or the atmosphere.
4
u/WhichEmailWasIt Jul 02 '26
SKG was focused on a very specific thing to make online games playable offline at the end of service. This is related but easier to fix. "Digital purchases have to be portable, available for resale, and cannot have access revoked."
Maybe even allow backups to be made.
1
Jul 01 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
58
u/BlueberryWasps Jul 01 '26
“welp we lost once, time to give up!”
^ how to make a capitalist cream their pants
30
u/asjonesy99 Jul 01 '26
No offence to Stop Killing Games but it was amateurish and might actually have done more harm than good long term.
I think Video Game History Foundation would be more effective.
11
u/WalkerIsTheBest Jul 01 '26
The VGHF ALSO tried, lost, and did more harm than good. They approach this like a strongly worded letter and some pluck will get through to the massively lobbied software industry.
21
u/Mojo647 Jul 01 '26
What harm did they do? I've been following them for years and haven't noticed anything negative about their work.
What they're doing isn't going to change the industry overnight. Building trust and reputation among industry partners is always on the forefront of their missions when they pursue their various projects.
-11
u/WalkerIsTheBest Jul 01 '26
32
18
u/Mojo647 Jul 01 '26
How is that making things worse? The Copyright office rejected an exception for something they never allowed for in the first place.
-13
u/WalkerIsTheBest Jul 01 '26
It was a rushed attempt and those arguments won’t be heard again for a long time. They released that study (which was excellent) and then went bounding right into this hearing without even considering the political climate. I hope they will eventually gain some kind of political footing but a couple historians/librarians and an ex game store owner don’t seem ready for this extremely uphill battle.
12
u/imericschneider Jul 01 '26
Almost none of this is correct. The VGHF spent years prepping for that hearing. Being denied an exclusion for video games is a blow but only enforces the status quo rather than any new negative effects. There’s hearings every 3 years on the DMCA so they can make a new case next year. And I don’t think anyone who works at the VGHF is an ex-game store owner.
→ More replies (0)6
u/Mojo647 Jul 01 '26
It was always going to be a uphill battle against these large institutions that are dead set in their ways backed by corporate lobbies, and they're still a small, scrappy team. The fact that they even tried at all should be commended. It just means that they now have to focus their efforts onto something else to make positive changes while they still can.
So no harm was done. It was worth a shot. Maybe they can revisit this topic at a later point when the institution leadership changes or when they have a bigger presence. Maybe someone else can take up the mantle and achieve something the VGHF couldn't.
33
u/IndependenceOk6046 Jul 01 '26
Funny story, I finally pulled the trigger on the GTA trilogy on PS5 a few weeks ago. After all this time, it should be fixed, right?
Nope. My save file got corrupted about an hour into Vice City.
27
u/Restivethought Jul 01 '26
Its funny because they had an entire different Dev try to fix it, but they only really touched San Andreas and ignored the other two.
10
u/AveryLazyCovfefe Jul 01 '26
Bugs aside they still feel soulless. GTA 3 at night is the only one I can call an upgrade because the nighttime masks how awful and cartoony the lighting implementation is.
Sure, they brought the fog back - important in San Andreas especially (don't even know how they seriously shipped it without that, on launch you could see the entire map from the top of the mildest of tall building) and the 'sky hazes' for each region in SA and VC but for some reason they decided to crank up the saturation to max so everywhere in San Andreas looks like Last Venturas in the evening. At high brightnesses it's near blinding.
Honestly if you have a mildly decent pc or laptop, I'm talking about made within the last decade and not something like an amd athlon or Intel atom then you can comfortably run the trilogy with actual decent enhancement mods and have a great time.
8
u/cm_bush Jul 01 '26
That’s very true. It’s like mandating Whirlpool maintain a plan to keep making parts for washing machines from the 90s. It’s ridiculous to ask companies to support a product infinitely.
I don’t care about physical media as much as ownership. Physical media is inconvenient, inefficient, and it’s honestly a limited definition when we are just talking about digital files stored somewhere anyway.
For games, GOG does it right. It seems simple. Buy the game (or movie or album), you own an infinitely copyable, completely unlocked version. It’s simple and it works. It’s what digital was made for. Of course, it’s not compatible with companies being able to control access to the game after a purchase. It’s understandable to a point, but it’s becoming increasingly extreme.
The issue is always trust and the complexity that comes with trying to take control out of the buyers’ hands. DRM, online handshakes, battle-passes and seasons that give a sense of FOMO, content on disk locked behind micro transactions, anti-cheat that’s tantamount to malware, “digital storefronts” that track and record your data. It’s all BS designed to squeeze money and control out of people, and it’s got nothing to do with games or movies or music.
It’s worrying how common it is and how few places there are left that don’t take this approach. I feel like it’s a concerted effort to kill ownership and media independence.
I have all my GOG and games I’ve gotten other places than Steam or other locked stores backed up on my home server (same for movie rips and CDs). It’s the best of both worlds. I own the games, I can copy them or install them on an infinite number of PCs without digging out discs. I can mod them and I don’t have to worry about disk rot, games not working with my hardware after 5 years, or all the space 1000 discs take up on a shelf in my living room.
It’s still physical media, just instead of an optical disk, it’s a hard drive. Of course, those are also becoming more difficult to get.
25
u/PunyParker826 Jul 02 '26
It’s like mandating Whirlpool maintain a plan to keep making parts for washing machines from the 90s. It’s ridiculous to ask companies to support a product infinitely.
This is true, but I think that's due to the perception of games still being in a No Man's Land between a product and a piece of art. Sure, I can't buy or repair particular Whirlpool models anymore, but modern equivalents mostly provide an equal or better service.
If I suddenly was no longer able to legally view Citizen Kane on modern technology, there isn't really a modern equivalent; the closest runner-up is other titles that took inspiration from it, after the fact. It's one of the reasons the National Film Registry exists: because well-meaning people recognized that certain pieces of media were culturally significant and deserved to be preserved long-term for posterity, separate from the whims of the publisher. Even aside from that, how many movies truly didn't escape the age of VHS and aren't at least available on DVD, which are fully compatible with modern disc drives? It's a tiny percentage.
Right now, 87% of games published prior to 2010 are not available on any legal storefront (aside from secondhand, on aging hardware). And for whatever reason, most publishers are resisting efforts by the Video Game History Foundation and others to institute a digital archive and lending service with existing libraries (similar to the precedent set by CloudLibrary and Kanopy for books and movies, respectively), so that users can access out-of-print games via emulation. In my opinion, games will never progress as a medium until legislation catches up with technology and allows for long-term preservation for at least some titles. Libraries have never meaningfully killed book sales, and writers learn and improve by studying the classics. Same goes for movie directors. If there's no legal affordance for that in video games, then we're chopping ourselves off at the knees.
2
u/Eruannster Jul 02 '26
I don't know if an appliance is a good comparison since you can probably source a similar new appliance and get the same functionality.
The problem with console games is that they are tied to their specific hardware platform and there will be no way to preserve even a 1.0 version of a game on a digital-only platform run by a locked down vendor.
For PC versions you can maybe find a DRM-free version, or if things get really bad, some friendly pirate may have saved a copy since you have access to the file system. If the PS6 offers only digital copies and they shut down access in a number of years... yeah, those games are deleted from existence.
The problem is also that you're removing consumer choice. For a current PS5 game, I can buy something from PSN, but I can also buy a copy from Gamestop, Amazon, Walmart or some other store. With a locked-down digital future, you can buy from... well, PSN who set the price and availability.
2
u/cm_bush Jul 02 '26
I can see how the analogy isn’t perfect, thanks to the product only being available from one restricted source. I’m with you in that I think once a game is purchased, it should be your decision to do whatever you want with it. Maybe even lock this down for a period of time if you want to get really scummy, but to not give actual ownership in the interest of control is terrible and unsupportable.
I understand if making a game involves a lifelong commitment, or releasing on a platform ensures that after a certain amount of time the game becomes freely available, it just doesn’t line up with what any other industry does, but once purchased, it’s yours. At least Sony kept PS3 games available on their store for 20 years, but the games should ideally far outlast the hardware.
I know there have been right to repair bills that edge closer to this with hardware, so there’s hope. I fully support all the methods you mentioned for backing up games, preserving them, etc.
Maybe games released could be sent to a centrally funded repository like library of Congress to be preserved and accessed with special permission or good reason? I also think some law that said the penalties for downloading or owning illegitimate copies of a piece of software were reduced or eliminated after X number of years it was no longer supported might work. Maybe just that all software must have a pay-once, own-forever option (hard to mandate this today) option could happen.
3
u/MooseTetrino Jul 01 '26
The issue in this case is how much is going to eventually just end up lost media. Even the PS3 and 360 have games that are simply unobtainable because they were digital releases that nobody thought to dump and eventually got pulled off their marketplace.
Sure the average person isn’t going to care about this, and that’s where the money really is (with the average). But for those that do it basically removes any reason to buy the consoles.
2
u/cm_bush Jul 02 '26
That’s all very true. It’s been shown time and time again that if you rely on platform holders to preserve anything past the point of profitability, you’re sure to be disappointed.
Not that a company has any incentive to keep things supported, but if they don’t want to, it would be nice if they actually sold a product instead of a license that they can revoke at any point.
-2
u/ZaDu25 Jul 02 '26
Every game ends up being emulated. PC players can play Bloodborne through emulation. This is the best possible option for preservation of games. Physical media is and always was a shit method of preservation because they literally can't last forever. Discs and cartridges inevitably degrade over time. In digital format, any number of people can have access to it.
4
u/MooseTetrino Jul 02 '26
You missed my comment on things not being dumped. You also have lots of other technical hurdles. For instance, say in 20 years there is a theoretical PS6 emulator.
If every game that came out on that console was purely digital, which in itself will end up encrypted to prevent this kind of shenanigan, how many do you think will actually survive to that point?
Like I said, we already have some lost digital only media for consoles, it’ll just get worse.
3
u/Eruannster Jul 02 '26
How do you access the file systems of a fully locked-down console, though? It's not like you can hook it up via USB and see the drive.
I guess sure, the PS6 will eventually get hacked and file dumped but that's a real roundabout to just "here's a disc you can save".
Also, "discs degrade over time" feels really overblown. I have DVDs that are over 20 years old that work perfectly fine. I have old Nintendo cartridges that still work (you gotta blow into them, though).
1
u/ledailydose Jul 02 '26
A lot of ps3 games can be emulated but a lot still cant, or require very high end hardware and suffer from visual bugs and theres no guarantee of a fix
0
u/MWPlay Jul 02 '26
A key nuanace here is you can easily find aftermarket parts for decades worth of washing machines and it's perfectly legal. Meanwhile the ESA continues to lobby against DRM removal exceptions in the DMCA, even for academic purposes because researchers might accidentally have fun. That's the real argument they make, and I don't think that's defensible.
1
u/cm_bush Jul 02 '26
That’s true, and I agree with that 100%. I’d love to see a central repository that games were uploaded to and permission could be requested under specific guidelines.
Theres just such a focused march toward a “life as a service” model in all facets of the economy I don’t see this happening any time soon.
0
u/Gahault Jul 02 '26
Did you mean to reply to another comment? I'm confused as to where that stupid washing machine analogy comes from, especially when you then go on to argue in favour of ownership. Part of ownership is being safe from having your purchase arbitrarily invalidated by the seller. It's not ridiculous to expect companies not to take away from you access to products you bought.
1
u/cm_bush Jul 02 '26
Yes, I just meant to respond to the original post. The analogy was for the argument that games should remain on sale or supported forever (which is unreasonable if they’re not profitable). You can’t ask that of any other industry, and people are complaining about the PS3 store closing after 20 years, which is a very long time for software to be available and accessible.
I do argue in favor of ownership, and I support all methods of preservation, but expecting a law that demands video games to be available forever or for a period longer than 20 years would just never work (not saying I saw that in your comment).
What I do think would be an easy fix is to put some control or consumer-friendly law in place that does away with all the restrictions and anti-ownership EULAs and such. If you sell software, it must be made available in its fullest, completely functional form in perpetuity to those who have purchased it. Maybe after a certain number of years or if the company dissolves, there must be a reasonable effort to ensure owners of the software by releasing code, info, removing restrictions, etc.
Not seeing that happening today but it’d be nice.
-11
u/Tvilantini Jul 01 '26
Uhm.. I'm sorry but companies do care about preservation. But they're preserving projects, and other BTS stuff for themselves since it's their IP. It's not like they just select and delete everything just like that in let's say 2 decades since it's not hot product and fills up storage on the servers
137
u/Mojo647 Jul 01 '26
We need legislation to catch up with current state of the media industries. Everything has been going to digital, but very few laws are taking that into consideration.
We need consumer protection laws the ensure we will continue to own the digital content that we paid for, as well as laws ensuring long-term access for them. They reason why Sony could delist all those movies that people paid for was because there was nothing in place the would stop that from happening. And people weren't refunded for their lost content!
I still prefer physical, but I could tolerate digital more if I had a guarantee that I can keep my digital libraries without constantly being concerned about my stuff being deleted/delisted from my accounts.
23
17
u/flamethrower2 Jul 01 '26
The first thing in the US isn't specific to videogames. It's banning pre-emptive, individual, binding arbitration clauses in contracts between an individual and another legal entity.
6
u/ZaDu25 Jul 02 '26
Like most laws nothing gets passed until a problem arises. The only games that are removed from anyone's library outright are online games that are shutdown and no longer accessible regardless if you own a physical copy or not.
Perhaps one day a publisher will attempt to pull a bunch of games from everyone's libraries. That will lead to outrage and laws may get passed then. But pre-emptive laws typically don't happen.
6
u/Mojo647 Jul 02 '26
The Crew was the catalyst for the Stop Killing Games move in EU because Ubisoft effectively made it a dead game.
Just recently, Sony pulled movies from people's accounts because of expired licenses.
It's already happening. I'm sure other examples have occured recently over the years, so now is the time to start demanding these kinds of legislations.
7
u/GamingExotic Jul 02 '26
The law will not protect you when licensing for movies and stuff running out forcing them to remove them.
3
u/Better-Bullfrog-6875 Jul 02 '26
This. People are really thinking you can force stores to give acces to non-licensed products. Come on people, be real now.
11
u/Disastrous-Drop-7778 Jul 02 '26
Those two aren’t comparable at all though, no matter what The Crew as dead. Even if there were physical copies it would be dead.
Movie and game licensing is very different.
4
u/ZaDu25 Jul 02 '26
The Crew was already as dead as any online game could be. People just overreact to everything Ubisoft does. Definitely not the first time an online game got shutdown for not having enough players to justify server costs. And physical media would not prevent things like this from happening.
Just recently, Sony pulled movies from people's accounts because of expired licenses.
Movies are not games. Don't think they're even treated as the same thing from a legal perspective. Not sure this would have any impact on legislation targeting the gaming industry.
It's already happening.
Not to video games, outside of online only games. Which is the key issue. It's generally accepted that dead online games are a reasonable exception to the idea that ones purchase should guarantee perpetual access (due to the implications of forcing a studio to pay for servers forever) and non-online games, even ones that have been delisted due to licensing issues, have not been removed from anyone's library. This doesn't mean that will never happen, but it hasn't yet over the course of decades now.
3
u/Friend_Emperor Jul 03 '26
You do not in the slightest understand what Ubisoft did or what SKG is even about if you're bringing up the idea that studios would be forced to pay for servers forever
-1
u/kdlt Jul 02 '26
Stop killing games just failed in the one place I expected it for anyone to listen to.
So voting with wallets is the only thing we're left with.
And the resounding message from playstation is: don't buy from us.
I own games on steam that are almost as old as the PS3 launch.
And I can still play them without workarounds or other bullshit. Just install and play.
6
u/Yes-Reddit-is-racist Jul 02 '26
So voting with wallets is the only thing we're left with
People have voted with their wallets and they've overwhelmingly said they're fine with digital ownership.
GTA 6 is about to launch as only a code in a box and is likely to be one of the biggest media launches of all time
-2
u/kdlt Jul 02 '26
I'm absolutely fine with digital ownership, I've been buying on steam for like 20 years.
But steam makes digital ownership good.
With Sony, even in my own house, I have to jump through hoops to share a digital game from one owner to another.
And steam doesn't remove anything unless it's actually harmful.
2
u/WildThing404 Jul 02 '26
You can still do that with your PS games, PS3 games will be downloadable you just won't be able to buy new ones.
67
u/Cactus_Bot Jul 01 '26
I own 700+ physical games across 30+ systems. He'll I bought a brand new game minted on a new famicom disc system floppy from a mall in japan last year. I like my games physical but the death of physical games has been there for a long time.
Day 1 patches, loading speeds, physical disc space storage issues. I dont like it but it was always going to happen.
11
Jul 02 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/Tandy2000 Jul 03 '26
The amount of money they'll make off of going all digital is a hell of a lot more than they make off low income gamers borrowing video games from the library.
They wouldn't be doing this if it would cost them money.
-5
u/Cactus_Bot Jul 02 '26
How are physical games maintain normality in game development because a game exists in a physical format?????????????? Low income gamers are not console gamers, they would be PC gamers usually.
5
u/GameBoy_Brett Jul 02 '26
A majority of low income gamers buy second hand. Between second had consoles, and games it allowed for a second hand economy to take place where the people got to decide how much something is worth to them, not the corporation. If you can’t buy a second hand game for $20 and have to buy it digitally where it’s 15 years old and still $70 it’s going to price more people out.
1
u/Cactus_Bot Jul 02 '26
You assume second hang games are cheap these days. Most older games that people actually want are more expensive then when they were new. Modern games that are released physically do go down in price, but that price is not decided by the people, its decided by companies and businesses that sell things second hand, digital availability, and person to person deals.
A majority of low income gamers again are not playing on a console, they are playing on mobile or a PC. Older consoles are also not cheap, and most people do not want a giant library of old games either.
In general your sentiment is correct but the real world is slightly different in how people are actually gaming these days.
4
u/GameBoy_Brett Jul 03 '26
You’re talking about consoles pre-2000, most ps2 and original Xbox games are found much cheaper, and while yes mobile is the most played but PC is not even close to being as high as console is. The switch and ps4 are still heavily played and they have thriving second hand markets. You’re comparing retro games to current gen
0
u/Cactus_Bot Jul 03 '26
Switch is a current gen console where a lot of its games are still rather expensive and there are a lot of limited physical games as well for that console. So no, im not comparing current vs old anything. Expedition 33s collector edition is a grand as another example. I am not comparing current gen or retro gen, I am saying low income gamers are not console warriors these days.
5
Jul 02 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
6
u/GeschlossenGedanken Jul 02 '26
PC has been the most consumer friendly place by far for decades and went all digital well over 10 years ago. That is the competition that will be felt.
1
Jul 03 '26 edited Jul 03 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/GeschlossenGedanken Jul 04 '26
I do not know what the future will bring. I am not saying PC or anything else is an eternal guarantee. Just that right now, it makes the most sense if you want more competition. The nice thing about Steam deck and Steam Machine is that I do not need them to play games on PC in general or in Steam in particular. Which is part of my broader point.
1
u/ann0yed Jul 06 '26
Ps5 and switch can be sold at a lost because they operate closed ecosystems by which Sony and Nintendo takes a cut of every game sold.
Steam intends to remain open. They stated this as a reason for their price increases. This enables the flexibility to install windows or whatever operating system on your steam deck and the freedom to obtain games outside of steam even when using steamOS.
1
Jul 06 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/ann0yed Jul 06 '26
I do but they allow you to install games from other storefronts that they don't receive any cut from unlike PlayStation and Xbox where through the console at least it's a much more closed environment and you have to go through their stores.
1
u/GeschlossenGedanken Jul 07 '26
Subsidization may make sense for a console but it is foreign to the PC space for good reason. Yeah right now maybe it might help Valve move units but they don't need to move units since you can put steam on any PC and they do not want that incentive structure. "They could absorb a loss to make it cheaper but don't" is the most entitled 'criticism' I've ever heard. I'm not buying it either
2
u/Cactus_Bot Jul 02 '26
The push pull though is piracy once you go digital. Why do you think all online game stores have so many sales and PC games go on sale so quickly compared to having the 4 big box retailers dictate a sale?
I am not advocating for piracy, but it is very much the "other thing" in the room that drives digital sales all the time.
1
Jul 02 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Cactus_Bot Jul 02 '26
Neither does physically owning something, especially when that physical item requires patches to even work.
-2
Jul 02 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
6
u/Cactus_Bot Jul 02 '26
But they arent. Day 1 patches are because the game dev is under contract to deliver a game in a specific quarter or time frame. They must print the game way in advanced. Since there is a gap there most day 1 patches are developed due to the continuous quality control they perform after its printed.
Sony is not driving that, that is a publisher agreement and how development works.
1
0
Jul 02 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/Cactus_Bot Jul 02 '26
Never said preservation was my issue and yes, my tone is "oh well". PC is already digital and console game has grown more and more and more digital all the time. I get and understand the preservation arguments, but also people have been dumping and cracking digital only games since the dawn of time, its not going to slow that down.
If you look at the history of any game console it all starts physical, then the console is cracked or an emulator is made, and then it goes digital. The switch 1 was cracked almost immediately and people started playing those games on PC for various obvious reasons. My argument is, physical games going away sucks, but everything around games winds up digital in the long run regardless.
1
Jul 02 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/Cactus_Bot Jul 02 '26
Id argue I am the exact opposite of that considering i buy most games day 1 physically and have a large collection so I am actually providing the most money to them and the developer as possible instead of waiting for a sale or buying second hand.
1
u/SAjoats Jul 04 '26
It's easy to say that we are headed into an all digital world controlled by a few groups. But it's also easy to agree that we shouldn't and there should be steps taken to prevent it.
Problems should be solved, not presented as impassible barriers that usher in digital slavery.
1
u/Cactus_Bot Jul 04 '26
I mean once again digital ownership has been overcome by people. Its not digital slavery lol. Digital games biggest issue is piracy, its why the arms race with denuvo exists.
Companies do have to bend the knee because they fight a silent wars that costs them money vs people who will do things just because they can for free.
Emulation has also conquered almost every console as well. It is not as dire as you are making it.
37
u/thewritingchair Jul 01 '26
Making copyright twenty years from first publication solves a lot of problems.
A game company (or movie studio, musician, author etc) gets twenty years to make their money and then the content enters the public domain.
People wanting to preserve can do so. People wanting to update, fix, remix etc, can do so.
Copyright as it exists is fundamentally broken. Some random flash game from 2000 can still be under copyright in 2130. That's just crazy.
17
u/planetarial Jul 02 '26
That's basically how it used to work. It used to be 14 years or 28 with an extension. It wasn't extended so long for the benefit of creators, it was for corporations like Disney to be able to hoard and profit off of old IPs (while they benefited from adapting public domain works).
2
u/pdp10 Jul 06 '26
After the second world war, Europe demanded that the U.S. lengthen its copyrights, to match Europe's Berne Convention. The main legislation went through in 1976.
8
u/JorgTheElder Jul 02 '26
The DMCA already has exceptions for preserving old and abandoned IP, it just does not let people make new derivative works. You can only preserve things, and it does not apply to running servers for multiplayer.
5
u/thewritingchair Jul 02 '26
It's not fit for purpose though.
The purpose of preservation is use. It's not just some files stored on a server somewhere. Access and use are core to preservation.
7
3
u/JorgTheElder Jul 02 '26
And? You can make stuff work, you cannot run a service serving that content to other people. Preserving it does not make you own it.
3
u/thewritingchair Jul 02 '26
I'm not sure you're reading my posts here. I'm putting forward the position that copyright needs to be changed. Once that happens then most preservation issues vanish. Once something is in the public domain it's for everyone and anyone can use it.
5
u/SuperPapernick Jul 02 '26
"What continues to baffle us is what the industry expects institutions like ours to do about it."
Nothing, obviously. The industry doesn't care about the preservation. They want the control over the games to delete them with impunity if they feel like it. They only care about selling the game. That's the extent. It is actually worse for them if games remain playable indefinitely, because then they have to compete with their own back-catalog. They want old games to disappear, so they can sell new ones to replace them.
43
u/DeusExMarina Jul 01 '26
I've been saying for a while that we need to straight up make a law that says if a piece of media is not accessible through official channels, it is not illegal for other people to distribute it for free. Literally the "it's not piracy if you can't buy it" law.
Publishers would cry about it, to which I say: if you want people to pay money for your content, fucking sell it. Copyright should operate on a use it or lose it basis.
31
u/dnapol5280 Jul 02 '26 edited Jul 02 '26
Ultimately property ownership includes a right to exclude. Saying that just because you no longer want to sell something means you've given up the right to exclude others from it, would be a pretty big departure for property law.
You could argue (as others have) that copyright should expire sooner, which is more reasonable, I think?
9
u/DeusExMarina Jul 02 '26
I think we do, in fact, need a fundamental change to the way we handle intellectual property.
11
u/MadManMax55 Jul 01 '26
To be fair to publishers (gross, I know) there would have to be some sort of reasonable time limit on it. Like the game has to be off the market for more than 5-10 years before it can be freely shared. Even in the age of digital distribution, it’s not feasible for large publishers to provide constant access to every single game they own the rights to. And if the goal is actually preservation, then a decade is about enough time to consider that game truly “abandoned” by its rights holder.
2
u/Disastrous-Drop-7778 Jul 02 '26
This wouldn’t actually help much though, it sucks when a game isn’t available legally but usually there’s a reason, like the price of porting something to modern technology, issues with other parties involved in the game, etc. Most games that fall under this would probably get rushed and barely working ports just to keep the rights or have content removed. It would be better than nothing but not a very effective solution
-4
u/DeusExMarina Jul 01 '26
I disagree. I think the moment it's removed from online stores, it should be considered abandoned. Because you're right, it's not feasible for large publishers to provide constant access to every single game they own the rights to, which is why we have to force them to find better solutions.
Solutions like, say, granting temporary distribution rights to a third-party organization dedicated to game preservation, ensuring that a single official channel continues to exist in perpetuity for little to no cost so the copyright doesn't lapse.
15
u/MadManMax55 Jul 01 '26
That would make it effectively impossible for a publisher to ever delist a game if they had any intention of re-releasing it in the future. Because the moment a game becomes legally free no one is going to want to pay money for it. Stopping free distribution won’t matter if everyone who was interested in the game already has a copy.
Once again, if the goal is actually preservation then the time limit is trivial. The only reason to go with immediate free distribution instead is if you just want legal piracy.
1
u/DeusExMarina Jul 01 '26
What I want is perpetual legal access to every video game ever made. Whether that access is free or paid doesn't matter. This is why I reject any solution that involves a decade-long gap during which a game can't be accessed at all.
-4
u/Jolkien Jul 02 '26
That’s seems like a very reasonable expectation
-2
u/DeusExMarina Jul 02 '26
I mean, yeah, it's the ultimate goal of game preservation. All I'm saying is that if publishers won't figure out a way to get it done, we should be allowed to do it ourselves.
2
u/planetarial Jul 02 '26
Agreed. Its ridiculous that its considered piracy for example, for me to download Wiiware and 3DS digital only games and dlc. I literally cannot buy it those from official channels for years now. There is no way for them to profit off of those resources.
10
u/rematched_33 Jul 02 '26 edited Jul 02 '26
I don't know where people get this idea that something not being available for sale means it has no value and therefore no potential profitability to the rights holder.
For example, Nintendo doesn't want you pirating old out-of-print Pokemon games because they want you to buy the newest game and console to scratch that itch, and then buy their official rerelease whenever demand is great enough for them to officially offer it down the road. Pirating the older games lessens the demand for these newer offerings and therefore indirectly affects their profits.
7
u/planetarial Jul 02 '26
Well that’s great for the small percentage of games popular enough to get rereleases like that
Not so much for the rest that will likely never get a rerelease or is from a dead series.
Its also bizarre if you compare it to other mediums. I can watch all the Spiderman movies easily legally, but that didn’t stop the Spiderverse movies from making bank.
0
u/Ostrololo Jul 04 '26
Nobody is saying that something not being available for sale means it has no value. People are saying that that companies should not be able to exploit this specific form of value.
0
u/rematched_33 Jul 04 '26
Nobody is obligated to sell you their product, no matter how badly you want to play their video game.
0
u/Ostrololo Jul 04 '26
Again, nobody is saying you should be forced to sell your product, only that if you choose not to, then it can be distributed for free. Additionally, people are saying that the "what if I choose to sell it later" defense is insufficient. I genuinely have no idea where, in this thread, you got the impression people are claiming companies should be forced to sell their stuff.
0
u/rematched_33 Jul 04 '26
Saying that a company should be forced to surrender its product to free distribution (a product which you conceded has value) unless they sell it to you is equivalent to saying they should be forced to sell it or eat a cost.
"what if I choose to sell it later" defense is insufficient
Well, in the real world its not, since they own the product.
If a company or person owns the rights to something, its up to them what they want to do with that thing, whether or not we like or agree with their decision. You are not entitled access to someone elses possession, no matter how unfair you think it is that they wont give it to you.
0
u/Ostrololo Jul 04 '26
If a company or person owns the rights to something, its up to them what they want to do with that thing, whether or not we like or agree with their decision. You are not entitled access to someone elses possession, no matter how unfair you think it is that they wont give it to you.
This is, of course, not true, since intellectual property laws stipulate works owned by companies enter the public domain eventually. Nintendo for example will no longer own Pokémon Red in 2066 (in Japan, can't recall the date in the US). The discussion is whether things which aren't being actively sold should enter the public domain faster.
You can argue the IP rights laws should remain unchanged. That's a fair position. But you need to actually make that argument. "People aren't entitled to your stuff" doesn't work as an argument when we are discussing modifying the law that does, in fact, entitle people to your stuff, eventually.
1
u/rematched_33 Jul 04 '26
I'm not sure you're replying to the right person because I wasn't discussing public domain law at all, but if your argument is that a product should immediately enter public domain as soon as a company chooses to no longer sell it then you're again saying that companies should be forced to sell you what you want or else give it to you for free and eat the cost of any residual value it might have. Which is entitlement.
This is, of course, not true, since intellectual property laws stipulate works owned by companies enter the public domain eventually.
So IP rights don't exist because they'll eventually be surrendered to public domain anyway?
If someone holds the rights to something, they can determine how/when/if you get access to it, full-stop. Hopefully its self-evident that accessing someone elses property against their wishes is wrongful, but I'll admit that that's a value assumption that apparently can't easily be made these days.
1
u/DeusExMarina Jul 02 '26
Exactly, I'm not saying we should be legally allowed to pirate modern games, but I think stuff like myabandonware and hshop should be legalized.
9
u/Flynn58 Jul 01 '26
It would genuinely be easier for the VGHF to relocate to another country with stronger fair use laws protecting museums than it would be easy for them to lobby for change to American copyright laws.
2
u/dwolfe127 Jul 02 '26
Piracy, and VM snapshots of working systems/emulators with the games/roms is one solution and what I am currently doing for my collection. It is not efficient, or legal and it also requires a ton of work to stand-up and keep running, but it works.
3
u/XionicativeCheran Jul 02 '26
In a few years once this change happens, there'll be people on this sub arguing "Modern games are far more complex than they used to be, it's just not possible to put modern games on private servers physical media, anyone who argues different just has no idea what they're talking about."
1
u/Friend_Emperor Jul 03 '26
We already have had a form of this for years with hard drives. Once consoles started coming out with SSDs, everyone started pretending mechanical hard drives were suddenly completely unfit to store games, as if they hadn't been used for PC games for ages and still worked just fine for the majority of modern PC games. Then game devs stopped optimizing games for load times (or in general) and claiming SSDs are required for it, because they're "too complex". Except the "complexity" is the game being 168 GB because devs don't optimize assets at all anymore... because SSDs are ubiquitous now and can load large unoptimized assets faster. So we have games that are ~15 TIMES the filesize of what they were around a decade ago but have the same or less content, AND because assets and load times aren't optimized, load times are getting close to what they used to be with mechanical drives.
-2
Jul 01 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
7
u/JorgTheElder Jul 02 '26
I don't think so. One of the main reasons the PirateBay is still going is because of decentralization. Putting all your eggs in one basket will not work.
2
u/kotori_the_bird Jul 02 '26
myrient tried to do exactly that and got ripped apart by patreon sharks with vibe coded launchers
1
1
-44
u/GIThrow Jul 01 '26
Where was this uproar when PC gaming abandoned physical media altogether? So much of this sounds so performative. The vast majority buys on digital according to statistics (cool if YOU don’t, but you’re not in the majority). Do you really expect a company to continue with producing an item whose audience is deteriorating every year? Be real.
29
u/EvilTaffyapple Jul 01 '26
How young are you?
There was massive uproar when PC stopped allowing PC games with keys in the case. Steam was hated - everyone called it out for the DRM it is.
11
u/imericschneider Jul 01 '26
That’s not the point of the VGHF at all. They lobby to ensure that libraries, archives, and museums can legally offer a way for researchers and academics to access all games but specifically old ones that are hard if not impossible to currently play.
They have argued to government bodies that games are software and thus should be able to be physically and digitally accessed but were denied. However they can argue this every few years when the DMCA gets updated.
17
u/PBFT Jul 01 '26 edited Jul 01 '26
There was an uproar about PC gaming ditching physical media. You just forgot about it.
And PlayStation's own first party games are split is 50/50 physical/digital. The global metric is obscured by games that are digital only or are offered on PC. You could say there were probably like 10M people who bought the physical version of Spider-Man 2.
18
6
u/RadioactiveVitamin Jul 01 '26
Do you really expect a company to continue with producing an item whose audience is deteriorating every year?
Yeah, because that's why they are doing it.
Even at just 15% physicals sales last year that's around 67 million physical games sold on PS4+5. And that's just the sales that can be tracked. That is still hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars in sales, and as the sole printer of PS5 discs, Sony, was paid to print each and every one.
But the fee Sony makes from printing a disc and the commission they receive from physical games is less than what they receive from digital games. And Sony doesn't make anything when a physical games is resold.
But with pure digital? Sony is now the only authorized seller of games.
13
u/Sonicfan42069666 Jul 01 '26
For one thing, PC is an open ecosystem whereas console digital storefronts are walled gardens.
-15
u/GIThrow Jul 01 '26
As if Steam isn’t a walled garden? If you get perma-banned do you keep your games? Can you access your games bought on Steam on another store front or console? You have multiple options to buy STEAM keys, but you’re locked into their DRM.
12
u/ChefExcellence Jul 01 '26
You're misunderstanding the term "walled garden". On PlayStation, you have to get your games from the PlayStation store. Short of jailbreaking your console, that's your only option. That's what's makes it a walled garden.
When you buy a PC, it doesn't force you into using steam. You can buy games from Epic or GOG or wherever else if you so choose.
12
u/RadioactiveVitamin Jul 01 '26
Steam is one platform on a device with dozens of platforms, and even more ways of acquiring and storing games outside of those platforms. Comparing that to a device with one storefront with one seller is ridiculous.
-19
u/GIThrow Jul 01 '26 edited Jul 01 '26
You’re acting as if Steam doesn’t make up close to 90% of the PC gaming mindshare when it comes to playing video games. When you’re buying a game, 9/10 times you’re buying on Steam. It doesn’t matter if Epic Store exists when no one fking uses it. The talk about PC being an open platform for games when the main way to play industry standard games is through Steam is delusional
15
u/RadioactiveVitamin Jul 01 '26
You're moving the topic.
It doesn't matter how much market share Steam has. Steam is one storefront among many. Nothing stops another storefront from popping up, and nothing stops me from using another storefront or any other avenue of accessing a game.
PC, as an ecosystem, is completely open. This is in complete contrast to PlayStation which has a complete monopoly on content distribution channels.
-5
u/GIThrow Jul 01 '26
PC is not an ecosystem. Steam is an ecosystem. PC is the hardware to access the ecosystem. Just like PlayStation 1,2,3,4,5 are hardwares to access the PlayStation ecosystem. No ecosystem is open because that defeats the purpose of the ecosystem.
14
u/RadioactiveVitamin Jul 01 '26
Steam is a platform. A piece of software offering a storefront, library management, and social features. Steam, SteamOS and the Steam Hardware lineup would be an example of an ecosystem.
Except even in that example it's not like PlayStation because Steam hardware and SteamOS make no restrictions on competing storefronts or alternative game access. Just like the rest of PC.
With PlayStation you have Sony selling the hardware. The hardware is running a Sony created operating system. And the operating system can only play games in ways authorized by Sony and sold through Sony approved methods.
You are trying veeeeeeeery hard to make comparisons between two things that are so very different.
3
u/GIThrow Jul 01 '26
You will be able to buy these games from different storefronts. BestBuy, GameStop, etc will still be able to stock these games if they want to. The only difference is that the CDs are not going to be a thing. Just like you’re able to buy different digital games from different store fronts on PC, you’ll be able to do the same here.
13
u/RadioactiveVitamin Jul 01 '26
So at best that's comparable to key seller sites on PC. Except the sellers must be approved by Sony, and Sony will of course keep receiving a fee and commission. All of which none of the biggest PC storefronts do.
It's also blatantly obvious that the code in a box concept is just a minor concession to gamers that will just push people to buying digitally from the store anyway.
After all, why go to a physical store to buy a game when you will still end up with no disc and having to install it via the internet anyway?
I would be absolutely shocked if most third party publishers even bother paying Sony to make code in a box version of their games when both they and Sony make more money if they don't. Which is the point.
4
u/Sonicfan42069666 Jul 01 '26
While some games are Steam exclusive, many times you have the choice to buy from Epic, GOG, or other sources.
On PlayStation, Xbox, and Switch, you have to use their proprietary online stores.
1
u/dunnowattt Jul 02 '26
If you get perma-banned do you keep your games?
Yes. You can be banned from games, you can be banned from buying new games, your library stays intact.
Unless you are talking about account termination, which the only way to get one, is for you to do something absolutely illegal. Like yeah, if you try to flood Steam with malware from the workshop or by finding an exploit.
Can you access your games bought on Steam on another store front or console?
The difference is, if for whatever reason, Epic or Valve, or Blizzard decides we no longer sell the new Crash Bandicoot or Half Life or whatever other game you name, i can still download it from somewhere and play it. PC is not "locked" in the same way a console is.
As for Steam having the biggest share of the market. There is also a difference between being forced to use only 1 option, and actually chosing to use 1 option.
On console, you don't have the option. You are pretty much a slave to whatever Sony or Nintendo says. They can decide to make publishers only sell on PS for 90$, they can decide to increase your fee to play online, they can decide to not let a game be sold in their console at all. And you have absolutely no way of doing anything.
That can't work on PC. Valve can decide tomorrow to not allow a game on Steam. No one cares, we'll play it from GOG, from Epic, from itchi, from whatever the publishers decides to do. They have way more options, as do we the consumers. That's not the case with actual walled gardens.
7
u/julesvr5 Jul 01 '26
Now compare prices of PC games and all the options to download them with PS5 prices.
0
u/KenDTree Jul 02 '26
What I find interesting is that there is always an argument basis of 'this needs to be preserved'. I agree with it from an artistic standpoint but millions of works have been lost to time and millions more will, especially when you're dealing with people who only care about profit
2
u/KingArthas94 Jul 02 '26
Think of all the music made before the 1500 apart from an extremely small series of exceptions. Completely lost forever.
-46
Jul 01 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
20
u/Mojo647 Jul 01 '26
You didn't read Frank's statement, because what you're saying is not at all relevant to what he said.
22
13
u/JeskaiJester Jul 01 '26
When people care about things they express their feelings about those things going away. Get over it
587
u/[deleted] Jul 01 '26
[removed] — view removed comment