That's a good point. In fact, you can still to this day buy a new PS2 in some shops. (Granted, it's becoming rarer and rarer, but there still are some shops that sell them. And quite many more sell them used.) And many PS2 games are still being sold new as well (although this seems to be slowly becoming rarer as well.)
Given how complex the PS3 is, and given that PS4 uses different and incompatible hardware, it's understandable that PS4 will not have backwards compatibility, although it's a shame. The same goes for Xbox One.
(Speaking of which, Microsoft just reversed their draconian policies with regard to the Xbox One. Yay!)
Note that many jurisdictions do not recognize "placing under public domain" as removing copyright. In other words "public domain" is not a valid usage license in many jurisdictions. (And yes, some copyright attorneys disagree, and other copyright attorneys disagree with them. I have seen articles written by attorneys defending both positions.)
What happens if you publish something "under public domain" but the jurisdiction doesn't recognize that as valid? Your work will still be copyrighted and because you didn't publish it under any usage license, the default is that, technically speaking, nobody can legally use it for all possible purposes.
The safest bet is to use a liberal copyright-based usage license (such as the MIT license.) That's legally bounding in the vast majority of jurisdictions and people can be sure that it will not bite them back in the future.
It doesn't bother me with this particular run, and I said exactly that, and in a manner that I thought was clearly understandable as "no need to start a discussion about it."
Then someone started a discussion on the very subject on this very thread. Who was it? Oh right, it was you.
And now you expect me to not to respond to your arguments?
If you don't want the subject to be discussed in submission threads, then perhaps you shouldn't start discussing them in submission threads.
If nothing else, using copyrighted music, no matter how little of it, in practice never falls under fair use.
(I'm not exactly sure how this situation came to be. Seemingly big music megacorporations have somehow succeeded in lobbying all western governments into making a de-facto, if not a de-jure, exception for music. Even a few seconds of music, no matter how it's used, is copyright infringement and is punishable by astoundingly and unusually large fines. Not only do "fair use" laws just not apply when dealing with music, it's seemingly such a heinous crime that you can get punishments more severe than from actual crimes that physically hurt people.)
I didn't mean it like that. I meant it as "I should arbitrarily accept an answer without any thought or objection."
Which is my point, exactly. My question is relevant precisely in this thread because it questions the validity of this submission. (The rules say that the game must be completed. My question is: Does this really do it?) You are saying that the question is not relevant to this thread. Therefore we disagree.
So you are saying that I should just accept any random answer that someone gives to the question?
It's not like this is a question of mathematics, like "what's 4 times 7?"
I think the concept that applies is "derivative work". Even if the work is yours, if it's based on existing copyrighted material, there are special rules that apply to that.
This is why, for example, fanfiction technically speaking breaks copyright even if the writing does not literally copy any significant portions of the original work of art. It's considered derivative work (and copyright laws cover that as well.)
Of course not. Goats are not horses. Goats belong to the order Artiodactyla (even-toed ungulates) and horses belong to the order Perissodactyla (odd-toed ungulates.)
The way I see it, there are two different aspects of "completing a game": From a purely technical point of view ("does it reach routine X, after which it proceeds to routine Y?") and from the viewer's point of view.
Imagine a hypothetical situation where a game could be made to jump to is ending routine during bootup by some bug-triggering button-pressing trickery, the end result being a 0.1-second run that displays nothing else than "the end" and that's it. Sure, it might have been "completed" technically speaking, but from a viewer's perspective there's no feeling of the game having been actually played through and completed adequately. The result would be quite underwhelming. (*)
It's one thing to eg. zip through walls and through most of the level at unintended speeds. At least the levels are being traversed through. A slightly different thing is skipping entire levels. And an even more different thing is skipping the entire game.
(*) Before anybody brings it up, King's bounty is being completed in the intended manner: By finding the macguffin, as dictated by the game mechanics. Not really the same thing as bugging the game into jumping into the ending code.
I would otherwise be tempted to bring up the subject of "what constitutes game completion?" once again, but for some reason that I cannot fully understand, with this particular game it doesn't bother me at all.
Therefore I voted yes.
Nothing would stop a hacker from generating such a valid checksum for his malicious savedata. (Sure, if the program is compiled, rather than interpreted, and it uses a custom hashing function, it becomes more difficult to find out how the checksum is calculated. However, it's not impossible. If the CPU can read the code, a hacker can too. It may not be trivial, but it's far from impossible. Such a solution would basically be "security by obfuscation" which is not a good idea.)
Yes, because XML is the only standardized format in existence that allows separating things neatly into groups. (At the cost of making the data take 10 times more space than it needs to.)
The only possible reason to use XML would be if you want the savedata to be easily read and parsed by third-party programs. However, even for that purpose there are much better and compact standardized formats.
I don't understand what that text has to do with the video in question.
As for the video, I wonder if it's a jab towards Microsoft's policies with Xbox One.
Well, if we are comparing technical specs...
- 240x336 pixels (79.5 PPI) 2 colors vs. 768x1024 pixels (163 PPI) 16 million colors.
- Capacitive single-touch vs. resistive multitouch.
- 410 grams vs. 312 grams.
- 20MHz ARM6 (ARMv3) vs. 1GHz dual-core ARM Cortex-A9 (ARMv7).
- 640kB RAM vs. 512MB RAM.
- No graphics accelerator vs. PowerVR SGX543MP2.
- 114.3 x 184.2 x 19.1 mm vs. 200×134.7×7.2 mm.
Yeah. The newer device is also such a memory hog! A fullscreen raw image on the older device would take less than 10 kilobytes of memory, while on the newer device it takes 3 megabytes! What a waste.
To clarify: Yes, the author of the keypress input file has (AFAIK) copyright on said file, because it's a work fully created by said author (and which isn't even derivative work because the file contains zero content from the game.)
However, the video capture of gameplay, even if it's being played by an emulator using said keypress file, is most probably not copyrighted to anybody else than the owners of the original game. The video can be considered derivative work.
Fair use in most countries protects the rights of people to make reviews, commentaries, parodies and other similar things of copyrighted works. However, a gameplay video is probably somewhere in the fuzzy line between.