I've listed why someone would need access to the SNES version. But again, I don't care about Chrono Trigger, that's not the point. Versions of games are more or less different games depending on lots of factors. There are valid reasons for someone wanting a particular version of a particular game. That's all I'm saying. What Square Enix wants doesn't matter if they're not providing what that person needs.
Of course the purpose is not meaningless: The reason we have Sonic 1, 2, CD and Mania ported to modern systems with full widescreen support and extra features is because someone did LITERALLY what I am discribing and got hired for it. Is getting three actual remakes and a completely new fantastic game because of this exact practice suddenly meaningless to you? That's insane. Having access to and being able to hack original ROMs (when not obtainable by legal means) of games is incredibly important and the only reason some of that stuff exists. A lot of popular game developers out there right now got started by hacking illegally downloaded ROMs simply because there was no other way to get a hold of that stuff. It's not a roundabout way to justify anything, it's an example where piracy has literally led to positive things where some people ITT are trying to argue that there are only downsides to piracy regardless of context, which is utter BS. Of course there are problems with piracy. Many formats (Amiga, anyone?) have literally had their companies go bankrupt over it - no one, especially not me, is denying that. You can certainly argue that piracy does more harm than it does good, I have no problem with that assertion. It doesn't mean that you get to lie about the definition of theft just to enable taking a zealous standpoint against every single situation relating to piracy.
Either way I think most of us (except Dr Wily because mamma mia) agree on all of these points overall. I think the optimal solution would indeed be getting access to a pure legitimate ROM whenever you purchase a digital re-issue of a retro game. If that happened, I would hope to be the first one posting the thread, championing that publisher as goddamn heroes and buying the shit out of every single thing they ever release out of respect for them.
On your last point; I literally wrote that exact same thing earlier lol. From a legal standpoint, until either the law changes or ROMs being available for legitimate purchase, you're shit out of luck if you aren't comfortable with breaking the law. That is, indeed, what you get. Now, I don't think it should be and I don't think any of us should be taking that lying down - but it is what it is and I encourage people to go out there and get these laws changed. Admittedly a herculean effort, to be sure.
Do these devs "own" those games that have been patched? Because if you're trying to argue that someone downloading a lower patched version of a game they already own on that very platform is comparable to this situation, I feel you've lost the plot.
There's a difference between "I want to compare version 2 of this game on the iPhone and version 3 of this game on the iPhone" versus "I want to compare the SNES version of Chrono Trigger to the Steam version of Chrono Trigger".
One of those is arguably the same game at either point (iPhone) but the other are two entirely separate games that carried their own separate copyright. You bought one, it doesn't magically entitle you to the other (aside from situations like, again, Sega, where it's being straight emulated and they even provide easy access to the rom).
No one in their right mind would argue "I don't want to buy the DVD/Bluray/4K version of Blade Runner because I prefer the VHS version, so I'm just going to pirate that because it's not available anymore in that format so it's okay".
I mean, presumably, the person in my scenario might just as well own every single other version of Chrono Trigger? I never stated otherwise. Does that suddenly make it acceptable to break the law according to you? Because they still would be, thus the comparison to patched mobile games stands at least from a moral if not legally technical perspective.
I honestly don't understand what the difference is? Again, legally I know exactly what you are talking about and have no qualms with any of your statements. That's not what I'm arguing about though. It is quite literally the same as a patched iPhone game from a moral standpoint within the confines of this argument.
I will concede to your last point; I agree that pirating an upgraded release on the basis of owning the old one is morally wrong, logically speaking. However, my argument is based on the premise of the original version not being available for purchase - which is very different from that scenario.
Anyway thanks for your reply, I appreciate a genuine good faith response after some of the other exchanges ITT.
I'm not using the word thief as you're eloquent argument against the term has been heard and noted. My argument is if you can obtain a legitimate copy of a game and instead choose to pirate it that is wrong. I've discussed earlier in the thread downloading games who a normal consumer has no means of obtaining a legitimate copy of (go for it but I'm personally going to stick to the law in this case) and argued staunchly in favor of a users ability to resell their own games (Used games are not the same as pirating so let's not try to equate the two).
As for academic study of a game, The use case I and (I assume) everyone else here is arguing against piracy for (playing games for enjoyment) is not the same as an academic study of it. I've advocated briefly earlier in this thread for libraries to have the ability to store and archive out of print games for such purposes. As for the game developers doing it (pirating) I really have no issue with the rights holders to a game obtaining a copy of that game through those means as they well.... own the IP, code, and everything associated with it.
Appreciated. That was all I was trying to say about how words are being used in this context. Again, I agree with you - but the argument is based on the question of what constitutes as a copy of the game? If someone requires access to a specific version of said game, having access to a different version under the same title is useless to them. There are both valid and morally reprehensible reasons for feeling like that - I'm well aware, but I think ignoring the valid reasons is pretty harmful to the continued development, mentorship and maintenance of this industry. People like Rami, Warren and other highly qualified developers apparently agree with me, not that I'm basing my argument on appeal to authority, but they are examples of relevant people who do indeed hold these views for a legitimate reason. I also don't think we should equate used games with piracy, so excuse me if that's how my argument came across. I was merely using it to debunk the idea that piracy is wrong SOLELY because money doesn't go directly to the creators (and this is even ignoring injustice in terms of distribution of profit between publishers and the people actually creating the games, but that's too broad a topic for the scope of this thread.)
Once again, we completely agree here. I wish we lived in a world where either the law allowed cases like these under fair use or we had access to well-maintained academic libraries (though in many of these cases the ROM hacking wasn't even academic in nature yet still incredibly useful to this industry, so the argument doesn't end there) and companies were willing to provide source code (now THAT would be something we could all rejoice over). Just to clarify, Christian Whitehead (presumably) pirated the ROMs he hacked long before he was hired by SEGA. The ROMs were never provided to him by them until AFTER they decided to hire him based on his work via (again, presumably) initially illegal means.
My core argument ITT is honestly just that trying to paint piracy as something exclusively abhorrent that is unacceptable under any and all circumstance is incredibly foolish and completely ignores the reality of what is actually happening in our industry. Nintendo themselves published an illegally downloaded ROM FFS, presumably because they couldn't (or couldn't be arsed to, compare that to consumers being asked to jump through hoops in the same cases) find their own ROMs. People conveniently ignore that and hand-wave it as irrelevant when the reality might very well be that even a company like Nintendo has to rely on illegally distributed ROMs to provide further access and renewed life and interest to some of these games.
