Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder2.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: rridge@csclub.uwaterloo.ca (Ross Ridge)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action
Subject: Re: GOG Preserves Old Games... but do they?
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2024 18:57:50 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 62
Message-ID: <vhqk7e$1a0p3$1@dont-email.me>
References: <qkfpjjtvd1v2dj3t1al019l9qkr2tgdop3@4ax.com>
Injection-Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2024 19:57:50 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="29e94895d850f2897f78e269dd639da0";
	logging-data="1377059"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18PPyemnrl83lX/ds6G5ph/"
Cancel-Lock: sha1:l3RWtQT3M4X0eeXSsdUlWy9UUx8=
Originator: rridge@csclub.uwaterloo.ca (Ross Ridge)
X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test77 (Sep 1, 2010)
Bytes: 4137

Spalls Hurgenson  <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:
>GOG's idea of preservation is focused on rejiggering the code to work
>on modern PCs so they can sell it, and I have to wonder... if you
>change the game, is it really preserving it? It's one thing if you
>take the original game and containerize it in DOSBox or some sort of
>virtualization, but GOG --and partners like Nightdive Studios-- more
>often create new code entirely. 

I'd say it's preservation.  What GOG does isn't what Nightdive Studio
does.  They're fixing bugs and adding code to do things like emulate
CD audio.  (Which I believe works by intercepting Windows CD audio API
calls and playing MP3s instead.)  Most of of what they do are the same
things publishers do in the period after the game's release when they
still think it's a viable product.

Perserving physical works often means adding things that weren't
originally there.  An old painting might have new paint added where the
old paint flaked off.  An old building might have broken bricks replaced
and remortered.

>Now, on the one hand... does it really matter? However they do it, it
>gets it so we can play the old games again; that's all that matters.
>right?. Except that NEW code has a expiration date too; stuff that
>runs on Windows64 will one day be as obsolete and hard to run as C64
>assembly code. 

Sure, but whole point of "The GOG Preservation Program" is that they're
promising to continue to update these games to be compatible with new
systems.  Otherwise it's nothing new, just explicitly labeling what
games GOG has already patched so they work on modern PCs.

>Worse, this new code gets new copyright... and that only makes the IP
>rights of these titles even more complicated. In 2045, people wanting
>to update (and play) these 'preserved' titles will have yet another
>hoop to leap through as they have to navigate the maze of ownership
>for those old games.

Well, the idea here is that you'd just be able to buy it on GOG.com
like you do now.  Obviously, there's no guarantee that GOG will still
be around in 2045, but GOG's work in making these games playable today
doesn't in make it any harder for these games to be playable in 2045.
Worst case for anyone trying to make these games playable in 2045 is that
have to start with the game as originally released, with it's original
copyrights, as if GOG never existed.

>But that's not what GOG is doing. Right now all GOG is doing is
>bolstering its own bottom line. Which is fine for a company, but
>hardly deserves the praise that's getting heaped on it as a 'preserver
>of old games'. 

GOG is bolstering its bottom line by perserving old games.  Which is
great, because its sustainable.  Well, hopefully at least, as GOG isn't
raking in the cash like Steam.  They're hovering somewhere around the
break even point, so it may not turn out to be sustainable in the long
or even medium term .  Still it's more sustainable than spending their
limited resources on open source emulators and keeping Archive.org afloat.

-- 
 l/  //	  Ross Ridge -- The Great HTMU
[oo][oo]  rridge@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
-()-/()/  http://www.csclub.uwaterloo.ca:11068/
 db  //