- This topic has 25 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 17 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
-
I’ve started taking a class called IT Ethics which has a paper due at the end of summer. I was thinking on covering the issue of Sierra Games and VU. Questions are easy but the opionions might vary greatly. Is downloading an old sierra game that VU no longer offers or supports unethical? Is the cracking of an old sierra game to fix a bug or timing issue unethical? Is providing a copy of one disk out of a series of disk to someone who says theirs is currupt unethical? There are many more questions but these are the common things I see happening on most Sierra message boards. Is it unethical for VU to hold a license to games that they will not release or support? Your thoughts…
-
I’ve started taking a class called IT Ethics which has a paper due at the end of summer. I was thinking on covering the issue of Sierra Games and VU. Questions are easy but the opionions might vary greatly. Is downloading an old sierra game that VU no longer offers or supports unethical? Is the cracking of an old sierra game to fix a bug or timing issue unethical? Is providing a copy of one disk out of a series of disk to someone who says theirs is currupt unethical? There are many more questions but these are the common things I see happening on most Sierra message boards. Is it unethical for VU to hold a license to games that they will not release or support? Considering all of the Stakeholders in this issue what are your thoughts…
-
When Activison shut down Infocom, many people felt the same way. I myself did not get a PC until after all of those games went out of print, so I went about acquiring them in the next ‘practical’ way. When Activision Finally re-released the games in 2 seperate collections, I happily purchased legit versions.
Is it illegal to copy copyrighted software…Yes
It is fair to hold the copyright on something and not have it domestically avaliable? NO
Therefore, A gamer has to do what a gamer has to do…
-
In my opinion, it is unethical to illegally obtain the Sierra games if it is possible to get them legally.
Case in point, a couple of years ago when I discovered eBay, I bought
every single Sierra talkie/CD game. Most of the games I obtained
were brand new disc-only releases or compilations (only 3 were
second-hand) – the cheapest cost me $5 U.S. and the most expensive was
$10 U.S (plus shipping – I live in New Zealand).I’d imagine it is still pretty similar on eBay, so I don’t see why
anyone would have the need to pirate these games. I don’t see a
distinction between whether or not the original publisher is selling
them still or someone is on-selling them.If someone is legitimately replacing a file in a bought version of a
game then I think it is ethical to copy that, as it is not likely that
Sierra/VU would be able to replace it for them. Again, I think
patches/fixes come under this as well.The only thing I see as unethical is people who use excuses to pirate
the games when they are still readily available dirt-cheap on trading
sights and in bargain bins around the world. In this age, no
excuse is good enough – especially with the cost of shipping a CD being
so little.Some may argue that the original developers are not going to see any
revenue from these games, so it is ‘ethical’ to steal them, but thats a
pretty lame excuse, as they wouldn’t have seen any money on a $5 game
sale anyway. -
Yes, but some rare games like the EcoQuest series and any of the Quest collection series can cost one up to $100 plus. One can buy a single King’s Quest 1 on ebay but on today’s computers, you would need the collection series since they don’t support the huge floppy disks and whatnot. Also, some fans may not have the money to build their own computer just for old games. I’ve seen many Sierra games (mostly rare) reach to expensive costs to which some cannot afford.
Yes, it’s illegal to copy games, but it is also unfair that these great games can’t be enjoyed as much as they can be. As to whether or not copying games is ethical, it can go two ways. One being, to what the laws and official rules are, and two being, what simply in one’s mind thinks what is ‘right’ and what is ‘wrong.’
As I think of it, as this world goes on, rules are constantly made since the beginning days. Would the cavemen think copying games would be wrong? Would the spectators of the Salem witch trials think that a mobile phone is evil and thus sentence you to death just because it wasn’t the ‘norm’ and therefore ‘illegal?’ We may go to jail or pay a fine for disobeying todays laws, but it basically is decided by ourselves, what we think is right or wrong, whether our actions are illegal or not.
But, to make us all happy, hopefully Vivendi will realize the goldmine that they have and finally release these compilations to the public. 🙂
-
-
I think that if a company ceases support for a product for a period greater than 5 years (long enough for second thoughts), the product should fall under something like the creative commons license (free for personal use, can not be distributed for profit)
But if the owner resumes sales and support, then we owe it to them to stop distribution.
In otherwords, you abandon it, you lose control, you reclaim it, you gain control. If every 5 years a company does a re-release that it fully supports, I’d be satisfied with that.
Steve.
-
Great thoughts! How close to the original program can someone create their own program without crossing the ethical or legal line?
If software follows the copyright laws of books were you have to wait 70 years after the passing of the author, a person who played these Great Sierra games would never be able to relive their memories. Especially taking into account the ever changing Operating System and Computer. -
Personally, I would not pay $60-$75 for a single game collection (ie, King’s Quest, Space Quest etc) for games I already own. Unless they decide to release ALL of Sierra’s AGI-SCI Adventure games in one collection for that price, it’s not worth it. I would rather apply patches or play them on a 486 system.
It’s ridiculous to keep paying money for something that you already own. That is like buying the same album on Vinyl, Cassette, CD, Mini Disc, etc..etc…etc…
Of course it’s not profitable for them to just offer us a free upgrade to a Windows Vista compatible version, now is it?
-
I would like to see the Sierra games become open source and freeware so fans of those great game can upgrade the games to the modern platforms. VU has the Sierra brand, without saying what they are doing with the name, but they have done little with the games as well. They could alway create a new King’s Quest, Quest for Glory, etc… game to continue the series and hold the rights to do so.
-
-
-
I’m trying hard not to put my own views in this post. Your views are much more important. I am doing a paper for college IT Ethics class which requires me to look at the issue from the point of view of all stakeholders including VU. I have played games from Zork to Syberia. Sierra was at the center of the greatest games I have ever played when Ken and Roberta ran the show.
Two of my main questions for this may be:
Is it ethical for Vivendi to withhold access to old software?
Is it ethical for Vivendi to prevent developement of fan sequals to their software if they have no intent to continue the series?
KQ9 is a good example of a fan sequal. But, now with VU in control, I have seen very little updates on their web site. -
Is it ethical for Vivendi to withhold access to old software?
Yes, accoring to the law but I agree with Steve on this one. If a company doesn’t support a product with X amount of years and has no future plans for it, it should be free for distribution. Isn’t there a copyright law for that? Is it fifteen years? If not, something should be done about it because now is the time when the first games are becomming old in age, where even if the company doesn’t want to keep those games alive, we, the players of whom the games were originally made for, still do.
Is it ethical for Vivendi to prevent developement of fan sequals to their software if they have no intent to continue the series?
VU has allowed Pheonix Online Studios resume process of KQIX due to a mass of rebellion and petitions. It was http://www.savequix.org that really put a foot in the door. They were allowed to continue as long as they didn’t use the King’s Quest title, which they changed to ‘The Silver Lining.’
I believe it is ethical for a company to stop production of a fan game if it is used for proft.
I believe it is unethical for a company like VU to stop production if the third party has no plans for profit from the fan game, regardless if they use any names, titles, storylines, etc from the original protected content. It is equivalent to writing a fan fiction of any game. It’s for entertainment purposes only, not for profit. VU wronged in that case until they allowed production to resume. KQIX had no intentions of selling their product, therefore they did nothing illegal or unethical.I believe a third Laura Bow was in the making by a fan group and was halted. By whom, I do not know. I read they were going to charge players only for the cost to box and ship the product, but never to gain profit from the game itself. Anyone can read about it here:
http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/laurabowinvestigativereporter/
Another thing I’d like to add. Someone on the official Gabriel Knight boards wanted to make a fan game for a GK4 a while ago. He emailed Jane Jensen asking for permission and she told him she didn’t want it made. I wish I still had the link to the conversation but it was deleted along with the old format of the forums. It is still legal for him to create a GK4 fangame if he doesn’t sell it, but in my opinion, I’d rather see a GK4 by Jane and only Jane. There’s something about Jane’s brilliance that can only be seen in her work.
*edited*
-
I do not think it is ‘unethical’ for the creator of a game series, in this case Jane Jensen, to request of someone that they not make a sequel. Make sure you are just not throwing around the word unethical. If I was the creator of something and someone decided they wanted to continue the story, depending on what it was, I would certainly feel like it was my personal thing and I wouldn’t want them to mess with it.
In any event, that’s completely moot anyway since it wouldn’t matter what Jane Jensen said, though as a fan I respect first of all what her wishes are – it would come down to VU.
-
-
-
Oops, you’re right, Brandon. I just re-read the Jane Jensen paragraph and it sounds a little confusing.. so I edited it. I agree with what you said. It’s more out of respect for Jane.
Now I feel like I’m being pulled both ways because I really want to play The Silver Lining but, I’d rather see only Jane make a sequel. Oh well. 🙂
-
I think she’s still working with Oberon Media. http://www.oberon-media.com
Her main website hasn’t been updated for a while. 🙁
-
-
-
Sonny Bono and Walt Disney??? I can’t imagine the two of them working together on something? Walt Disney is a legend, where as Sonny Bono is well…Sonny Bono
Personally, I thought he did more as a Congressman than as an entertainer….Although he is the reason for watching Airplane II…no, wait..that would be Shatner!
-
I think the software copyright laws are completely unreasonable and should be changed. Companies like VU Games hoard old games that fans demand to be rereleased and instead spend their resources on shutting down anyone who tries to provide the games for free since they are pretty much abandonware. If it’s not still being produced then it’s abandonware… I don’t care if there are $200 copies on e-bay or being sold used on Amazon.
So, if someone downloads abandonware on the internet, does the company that owns the rights lose any money? Are they affected in any way? I don’t know exact statistics, but I’m going to make a guess that people who are interested in abandonware are a very small percent of the entire gaming population. They usually grew up with the games, probably owned them and lost their copies or they just couldn’t afford to buy a copy at the time and have deep nostalgic feelings and appreciation for the games to seek them out and play them again. Of course, these games are no longer sold and probably don’t even work on current system. The system might not even really exist anymore, such as Commodore 64 or Amiga or Apple IIgs… even early Macintosh systems. At this point in time old Macintosh games are extremely difficult to get working without having an actual old Macintosh that supports it. And then take into account people who actually have the technical knowledge and computer skills to find the game, download it, decompress it, download an emulator that will play it, configure the emulator properly, and actually play the game… I’m willing to bet the number is insignificant compared to the gaming population as a whole.
That’s why companies really don’t sell or support these old games, because it would be more trouble than it’s worth and all they care about money. Which makes me mad that they don’t just let their fans download these games for free. They’re not losing anything and they’re not alienating their core audience should they decide to re-release the games. I have every single Sierra Quest game and I would have still bought the new compilations had they released them, especially if they were XP-compatible and had other enhancements that I’d like to see. I have enormous respect for companies that release old games for free. Bethesda did it for Elder Scrolls, companies like ID and Bungie open-sourced Doom, Quake, and Marathon. I think all companies should open-source their games after around 10 years. Fans would enhance and update the games for free and out of love for the game. At the very least, I think copyright laws should be changed to reflect the realistic lifespan of software. Software lasts at most 10 years. Especially games. I think a certain number of years without any support from a company for a particular game should automatically classify the game as abandonware. Either way, I don’t think abandonware is wrong. Downloading a game that just came out recently is wrong and I agree that a company has the right to protect their property. But the line has to be drawn somewhere. And in the case of Sierra games, I think the line is clear.
In the case of fan-made games and the wishes of companies or designers, I think fan games should be made and exist any way they want. Fan game projects should stop using numerical indicators to avoid confusion with any official game that gets released, and maybe even put Unofficial in the title or have a disclaimer at the beginning. But I don’t see any problem with such games being made. I can sort of understand how a designer would care about their characters and setting and be concerned with how it might all be portrayed in an unofficial game. I think dialogue between a game designer and fan project designers could remedy any of those issues so that both games can be released.
Of course, if anyone other than whoever owns the rights to game property is profitting from it, then that’s a completely different story. Anyways, it’s late/early and I’m tired and rambling but I think somehow my point will come through and everyone will agree and there will be harmony among all.
-
I’ve been thinking of offering files to people who’s disks have gone bad, or bought bum disks off of Ebay, but I don’t want to start an abandonware site (and get targeted by ESA).
Do you think it’s legal for me to offer files to people who can prove they own a copy of the game, see link for how I’d ask for proof. http://www.sierra-collector.com/help/replace.cfm
-
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonny_Bono_Copyright_Term_Extension_Act
Update: &*(&%&^$% This paper became a group effort and partner nixed Sierra Idea.
So, my opinion is that the new copyright laws of U.S. has doomed any chance of Sierra becoming public domain. The only option is to boycott any ‘Sierra (VU)’ games and hope they sale to someone who will release the good old adventures. The gamming industry makes up only 2% of VU’s business. I would expect a sale off if they don’t profit here. ‘World of Warcraft’ by VU’s Blizzard had a 109% sales increase in 2005 so Blizzard will be held onto unless that is boycotted as well. Maybe a ‘Derivitive Works’ could be made from the Sierra games legally.
-
