Arcade ROMs for Download, Legally

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Arcade ROMs for Download, Legally

Posted by simoniker on Wednesday October 1, 2003 @10:38AM from the could-be-a-constructive-step? dept.

jgoeres writes "StarROMs, Inc. has just launched a pay-per-download service for classic arcade ROM sets. These are what you need to make your emulator fun and legal. This aims to bring ROM collection & emulator use out of the semi-underground and turn it into profit, but will it fly? They currently have about 60 games, all from the various incarnations of Atari over the years, with more on the way. Prices range from about $2 to about $6 per game. And no, they don't have Marble Man."

28 of 338 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

$2-$6 a game!? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-01 10:38 · Score: 4, Insightful

I can go to the video game store and buy used games cheaper.
1. Re:$2-$6 a game!? by SweetAndSourJesus · 2003-10-01 10:47 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  I can go to the video game store and buy used games cheaper.
  
  And you can spend all day blowing on your cartidges trying to get them to work in your aging console.
  
  Part of the beauty of ROM images is that they don't wear out like our favorite cartidges and consoles do.
  
  --
  
  --
  the strongest word is still the word "free"
2. Re:$2-$6 a game!? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-01 10:49 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Yes, but why do these cost MORE? They don't even have the physical costs associated with cartridges, etc. These things aren't huge downloads, so even bandwidth costs should be minimal.
3. Re:$2-$6 a game!? by JVert · 2003-10-01 10:58 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  gah...
  Ok, parent established the benefit that roms have over cartiges, yet you want it to be cheaper because... it doesn't cost them as much? Frankly you need to charge at least $2 a game so people take you seriously. Would I feel bad about pirating a $.50 game? at all?
4. Re:$2-$6 a game!? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-01 11:00 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  What's wrong with $1 a ROM? It's a nice round number, and people like buying things for a dollar.
5. Re:$2-$6 a game!? by Bendebecker · 2003-10-01 11:02 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Considering most atari games average a size of 6k (this webpage alone is probably somewhere around 20-30k), I don't think $2 is a reasonable price at all. They must be charging a dollar a k! They should sell them for the old arcade prices - 25cents a rom.
  
  --
  There's a growing sense that even if The Future comes,
  most of us won't be able to afford it.
  -- Lemmy
6. Re:$2-$6 a game!? by Acidic_Diarrhea · 2003-10-01 11:06 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Steve Jobs would disagree regarding your price point. I believe that pay for download music sites and pay for download ROM sites have very similar markets and Mr. Jobs believes that $1 is okay. At least two dollars? I don't know - it seems like people are buying into the idea of iTunes.
  
  --
  I hate liberals. If you are a liberal, do not reply.
7. Re:$2-$6 a game!? by SenorMooCow · 2003-10-01 11:23 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  people like buying things for a dollar
  
  Apple did it with iTunes, why can't they do it with these ROMs?
  
  --
  I run a Debian/Kernel/Knoppix Mirror: (http|ftp|rsync)://debian.ams.sunysb.edu/
  apt-get @ > 5MBps == teh win!
8. Re:$2-$6 a game!? by istartedi · 2003-10-01 11:39 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  $2-$6 a game? I pumped more than that into some of these machines in one afternoon when I was a kid. Especially Defender and Tempest. Grr... I just gave up on that on those a while. I someone had time-traveled back and told me that unlimited play would cost no more than $6, I wouldn't have believed them. If they had... well... I would have played anyway. I was adicted. Besides. Who wants to play games when their over 30 anyway. Oh. I forgot. This is Slashdot.
  
  --
  For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
9. Re:$2-$6 a game!? by LoztInSpace · 2003-10-01 12:01 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Exactly. For the price of a couple of beers it has to be worth it. Who the fuck worries over $2?
10. Re:$2-$6 a game!? by steveha · 2003-10-01 12:48 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Back in the day, we would spend 25 cents to play video games once. For the cost of 8 to 24 plays, you can legally own the game, and play it as many times as you like -- hundreds of times, even.
  
  These will look and play exactly like the original games, because guess what -- they are the original games. The only difference will be that you will be using your own controller, instead of a possibly better (or possibly half-broken) controller at an arcade.
  
  Today, I can go down to the local movie theater (no arcades anywhere near my home) and I can play Hydro Thunder for $1 a game. Or I can buy the Playstation version of Hydro Thunder for $30, and it isn't even exactly the same game (the graphics were simplified a bit for the Playstation). So Hydro Thunder costs 30 plays to own, more than these ROM images.
  
  This is a perfectly fair price.
  
  steveha
  
  --
  lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
11. Re:$2-$6 a game!? by macrom · 2003-10-01 12:51 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I don't think $2 is a reasonable price at all. They must be charging a dollar a k! They should sell them for the old arcade prices - 25cents a rom.
  
  But the old arcade price wasa $.25 per PLAY. I think it's safe to say that many of us here spent WAAAY more than that on single games. Don't even TRY and tell me that you spent less than $6 in your entire life on Gauntlet or Gauntlet II (presuming you played it, of course).
  
  If you could travel back in time and tell a teenager that for $6 he/she could play a game as much as they like for all eternity, they'd pony it up in a heartbeat. I know I would have. Today, people gripe because everything isn't free and won't cough up a couple of bucks to revel in their youth.
  
  Maybe you would rather spend hundreds, nay thousands, of dollars buying these games individually from eBay, praying that they still worked so you didn't have to spend your weekends pouring over wiring diagrams that you printed from some JPEGs on a classic arcade site?
I hope this works... by chosen_my_foot · 2003-10-01 10:39 · Score: 5, Insightful

It'd be nice if this stayed legal and we could all get ROMs for unattainable games in a legal way. Somehow I feel that there's going to be one bad company that will ruin it for everyone.
It's a good idea... by The+Human+Cow · 2003-10-01 10:40 · Score: 5, Insightful

I like this idea, but until there's a reason (lawsuits or whatever) for people to be scared of illegally downloading ROMs, they're not going to want to pay for them. In the public's eyes there's nothing wrong with downloading a 15+ year old game because many of the companies are defunct now, and if they're not they probably won't care anyway.

--
The Human Cow - bringing you scrumtrelescence since 1995
1. Re:It's a good idea... by L-Train8 · 2003-10-01 11:09 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  It seems to me that sometimes there is a difference between being ethical and acting legally. Is it ethical for the law to limit my rights, if I am not harming anyone?
  
  The issue of arcade ROMs illustrates perfectly the problem with our messed up copyright system. We can't legally play many old games because they are not for sale, nor will they ever be. The companies that made them are out of business, and their copyrights are either lost or packed away in some warehouse. They won't be dusted off and offered to the public, because it's not financially worth the trouble. This keeps ideas and information, in the form of old games, legally out of the public's hands. These ideas and information are roped off from the public not to benifit the creators of the games, the ostensible reason for copyright, but to protect the status quo of copyright in general, and keep "piracy" in all it's forms outside the law. This is not confined to old video games, but books, movies, recordings, and almost any form of expression.
  
  --
  
  Don't forget that Friday is Hawaiian shirt day.
Why do I care if it's legal? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-10-01 10:45 · Score: 5, Insightful

It's already moral, what with them being 20 years old and generating no revenue for the original coders, artists and musicians, which is all I care about. Whether the company which bought up the company which bought up the company which did the work makes any money from their sale is not interesting to me.
1. Re:Why do I care if it's legal? by JustAnotherReader · 2003-10-01 11:27 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Whether the company which bought up the company which bought up the company which did the work makes any money from their sale is not interesting to me.
  Who cares if the original programmer is making money or not? If the company was still in business and the original programmer quit his job does that make it OK to steal the ROMs? Of course not.
  Sorry, but your argument has some pretty shaky logic. If somebody owns some desert land that they never use is it ok to go start a brush fire? Of course not, but maybe that's too destructive of an example. Is it ok to do some gold mining on their land? Rock collecting? How about 4 wheel drive offroading?
  It's not YOUR land and it's not YOUR property so YOU don't get to choose whether or not YOU want to pay to use it or not.
  It's the same way with these ROMS. So what if the original developing company isn't selling the game currently. I'm betting that the StartROMs is paying the current owners something. So yes, the owner of the copyright IS making some money.
  I think $2 to $6 per game is perfectly reasonable price to pay for a legal copy. It's totally irresponsible to say that because the original programmer or original company isn't making any money off of these licenses that it's OK to just steal their software.
2. Re:Why do I care if it's legal? by drwav · 2003-10-01 12:37 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Who cares if the original programmer is making money or not?
  
  Copyright, as was originally written in the constitution, was supposed to last for about 15 years in order for the creator/inventor to get some money from the work they created. It was also possible to get an extension in rare circumstances where the creator/inventor was still making a significant profit off their creation. However, after that point the work would revert to the public domain so that society as a whole could benefit from their work at no cost. This was meant to be a very carefully balanced compromise between the needs of the individual and the needs of the group. However, thanks to lobbying by businesses like Disney such copyrights have been extended to many years after the copyright holder dies. Anyone with a little bit of knowledge about copyright can see that this blatantly goes against what our forefathers wanted (in fact strict copyright was one of the reasons we wanted to free ourselves from British rule, albeit minor). As a result I believe that it is more than moral to play a 15+ year old game without having to pay since if some greedy people didn't insist on changing the laws in their favor it would be in the public domain anyway.
  
  It's not YOUR land and it's not YOUR property so YOU don't get to choose whether or not YOU want to pay to use it or not.
  
  You are confusing physical property with intellectual property, they are not the same and should not be compared. Land cannot be copied or duplicated. IP, which is usually nothing more than an idea (or in the case of ROMS, raw data), can be easily copied at no cost to the creator in this day an age. Many others have used your argument in the past, however that does not make it correct. Even law is able to make the distinction since theft of property is a criminal offence and "theft" of IP is civil. That is a fact that few people understand because of people spreading disinformation such as your flawed argument. It is annoying and spreads the minconception to those who don't know any better.
3. Re:Why do I care if it's legal? by caudron · 2003-10-02 00:03 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  If the company was still in business and the original programmer quit his job does that make it OK to steal the ROMs?
  
  Watch your terminology. You've been listening to the RIAA and MPAA too long. It isn't theft. Theft is a legal term that they are misuing. It is a violation of Copyright. Nothing was stolen (legally speaking). The person downloading a ROM didn't take it away from anyone else.
  
  There is a qualitative and even quantitative different between the legal term theft and what people do when they download music, software, or ROMs illegally.
  
  Is it ok to do some gold mining on their land?
  
  No it would not be. Becuase if I did that, I'd have stolen gold from them. They would no longer have it. If, however, I downlaod a ROM that is part of their IP collection, they still have it. You example is not really hitting the mark. Sorry.
  
  It's totally irresponsible to say that because the original programmer or original company isn't making any money off of these licenses that it's OK to just steal their software.
  
  Irresponsible? I don't see how that word realy pertains here. Perhaps you can clarify? Either way, I happen to agree with the previous poster. His assumption, though it was unstated, is that corporations should not be allowed to own copyrights or patents. That should be a right that falls solely to individualls, in so far as it should exist at all! His claim, therefore, that the original programmer isn't making money and so his download is morally acceptable is the same as saying, "I don't acknowledge corporate copyrights" which is both a moral stance and a resonable one.
  
  -Tom
  
  --
  -Tom
wow, that's not a lotta games! by Tumbleweed · 2003-10-01 10:49 · Score: 2, Insightful

Though some of these are just simply fantastic games. 720 Degrees - I dunno WHAT kind of controller you'd be able to find to play it like the original. And who has a dual joystick setup to play Battlezone with? :) The Griffin PowerMate is just _made_ for games like Tempest, though. I'll take one in black, thanks.
Good Stuff! by -Grover · 2003-10-01 10:50 · Score: 2, Insightful

Kind of a cool idea to legalize the ROM's of your favorite derelict console. My biggest problem with it is that they don't supply or support an emulator. It's basically all at your own risk, and if it doesn't work, too bad.

On the flip side I'd love to actually see this sort of thing take off and, get licenses out for games and emulators for other systems. Not to mention it's nice to have a piece of history without the ritual blowing, rubbing alcohol, smashing and praying for hours, for one round of Double Dragon ;)

As a gamer sometimes all the new fancy-smancy graphics from the X-Box and PS2 and the like are cool, but dammit, sometimes Gannon or Bowser just need to get owned!
because by SweetAndSourJesus · 2003-10-01 10:55 · Score: 3, Insightful

Businesses like to make as much money as they can.

Shocking, I know.

--

--
the strongest word is still the word "free"
hmm by dtfinch · 2003-10-01 10:57 · Score: 4, Insightful

Would the extreme gamer rather sign up, hand out their credit card number, and buy 60 Atari 2600 games for a sum price of about $320, or illegally download a small zip file containing 500 of them in about 30 seconds after 2 minutes of searching on Google?

I don't condone piracy but that's the reality of the situation. Same with music & such. The problem with media sales nowadays is that there are no bulk discounts, in a time where reproduction costs nothing and the aim should be to get the max of price time quantity from each consumer. Someone who wants 60 games rather than 6 is willing to pay more than the person who wants 6, but not 10 times more, because the average enjoyment they'll get out of each is less. So that kind of person, though willing to spend more than the average consumer, is completely cut out of the market and has to resort to more extreme measures like piracy to get what they want.
Re:Legal console emulation by JayBlalock · 2003-10-01 11:03 · Score: 4, Insightful

That's actually a very interesting test of legal theory. Go read their FAQ on how their setup works. Apparently Nintendo considered their claim, while a bit shaky, stable enough to not be worth going after.
On the other hand, it seems like, if they get too many users, the service would become useless.

--
Bush: He's Liberal in all the wrong ways.
gimme Gyruss.... by The+Lynxpro · 2003-10-01 11:20 · Score: 2, Insightful

...and a 360 degree joystick....that was quite a game...one of the best non-Atari arcade games from the early 80s...

--
"Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
Not a troll by Compact+Dick · 2003-10-01 11:22 · Score: 2, Insightful

Starfuckers Inc. is a reference to a Nine Inch Nails song.

--
Use ISO 8601 dates [YYYY-MM-DD]
Renting games, not selling them by lightspawn · 2003-10-01 11:54 · Score: 1, Insightful

From the FAQ:

If the connection between the client and server is broken the game no longer functions on the client and the server unlocks the game for other players. We allow you to rent our games, not buy them.

That really isn't very much like what the article suggests, now is it? It seems you can't really get a clean version of the ROMS, and you can't keep them - it's a DRM thing.
1. Re:Renting games, not selling them by ShinmaWa · 2003-10-01 13:47 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Ummmm... The FAQ you just quoted was from ConsoleClassix.com.
  
  The slashdot article is about StarRoms.com. They are two totally different things. This article has absolutely NOTHING TO DO WITH CONSOLECLASSIX.
  
  --
  The /. Effect: Thousands of users simultaneously accessing a site to not read its content.