I've never known anyone who could make a coherent defense of this premise.
Programmer A and B have two different projects, PA and PB. (they need not to be related projects).
PA uses GPL. PB uses BSD.
Company CA and Company CB come, take PA and PB (respectively), modify them and sell a product based on PA and PB.
PA MUST get the modifications back from CA
PB probably WON'T get anything back from CB
Yeah, PB isn't hurted in any way, if you consider him only, but if you compare his situation with respect to PA, he didn't get a better project, just because he used a BSDesque license.
If you're a commercial developer competing with other commercial developers, then the GPL might be more appropriate. In such a case you might need the heavy legal club that the GPL lets you wield in order to compete with those wielding heavy proprietary license clubs against you. But don't fall under the illusion that you're doing this in the name of the FSF's "software should not be owned" style of freedom, because you're really doing this for the opposite reason of explicitly asserting ownership over your software.
That is why enterprises who have embraced open source, have not used BSD licenses (yeah, I know there must be exceptions), but gpl (and lgpl) licenses (or equivalents).
And, if I have a hobby project, it is better to release it under GPL, so when someone makes an improvement on it, it is forced to give it back to you. Use BSD, and you will see your project be used for profit, and you getting nothing out of it.
See, even free software advocates can't keep their "frees" straight. You can get cost-free tools from MS for.NET if cost is the issue. You don't get the source, of course, but that's not an economic problem.
This is a language problem. English uses the same word for free as in "gratis" and free as in freedom.
On the other side of the argument, yes, you can get "gratis" tools from MS, but I shouldn't consider them. You know that MS has kept secret functionality in his OS, so their apps run better than competition apps, created on their compilers?
"GPL makes sense to the programmer, whose business IS producing software, because if you modify a GPLd software, you have no obligation to give it back. But if you modify it AND distribute it (ie, you sell it), you must give it back to the world, under the GPL."(mine)
So it appears you're saying that if your business is producing software but you aren't going to sell it, you don't have to give anything back. So what kind of software business doesn't sell software?(ClosedSource. Yeah, there is auser that is called that way)
I guess I must have qualified better that statement, something more in the lines of "to the willing to cooperate to open source programmer"
If your business is to sell software, it makes a lot of sense to contribute to open source. Because, if you don't you won't have a base to start selling software. I mean, you won't have all those nifty free tools around (gcc, linux, a lot of libraries, etc). Yeah, you can start to buy a lot of licenses, but to the starting entepreneur, it can be a very heavy start. Open source will only survive if people contribute to it. If an open source project conflicts with your product, well, do something else. We don't have to reinvent the wheel every time we want to do a business
To this programmer, your statement makes no sense. If I want to keep my source closed, I keep it to myself. If I want to make my source avaliable, I don't give a rat's ass what people do with it.
Well, it is your choice. A valid one.
I remember a story on slashdot (can't bother to provide a link) about a free nes emulator, whose source code was licensed in a BSDesque way. Jaleco came by and sed this to sell a closed source "game museum", something in vogue nowadays. Because of the license, they didn't have to redistribute their code (well, supposing they changed it in some way). The original author was very happy about this.
Results:
Jaleco was happy? Yes. They got a free emulator (which isn't bad) The author was happy? Yes, his program was used in a professional way, even if it was one he started as a hobby. We got a better nes emulator out of this?
NO!
Well, if Jaleco made some work to make a better emulator, comunity lost that work, and some other guy will probably repeat it.
If I incorporate somebody else's code in mine, why would I want to choose GPL'd code with all the restrictions that go with it?
There are a lot of benefits on doing this. I'm not goig to repeat them.
The 'B' in the 'BSD license' means Berkeley. It refers to an University. This University business is not to produce software, but to educate, research, etc.
This means that they do not care what happens with the software produced by them. They wish that people use it, and put almost no barriers to this purpose. This means, in the business context, that modifications done tho the software ARE NOT GIVEN BACK to the comunnity, whatsoever. This makes sense to greedy business house (Microsoft backs FreeBSD's license as "True free software")
GPL makes sense to the programmer, whose business IS producing software, because if you modify a GPLd software, you have no obligation to give it back. But if you modify it AND distribute it (ie, you sell it), you must give it back to the world, under the GPL.
To the programmer, BSD makes no sense. It may make sense to the Universities. Stick with GPL and LGPL
First, employers are always looking for people who go above and beyond the bare-minimum, including people who like what they're doing enough to do it even when they aren't paid. That doesn't constitute a paradox. Second, as soon as people widely believe that it is a good standard for hiring programmers (meaning it really is the language to learn to get a job), people will start learning it merely to get a job, so I'm not sure his statement really even makes sense.
It is not a paradox. It makes sense. It is a simple reality from the capitalist economic model.
Even that might cause problems. The PS2 used the same sollution but has problems of their own.
Maybe i'm just incompetent, but _i_ have difficulty using the R2 and L2 buttons on the PS2 controller with my middle finger. They work fine with index fingers, but for games where i need to press both the 1 and 2 buttons on the same side at once, or switch back and forth quickly between them, i'm totally screwed.
I have no problem using the R2/L2, as long as I can use only one finger to press them. If I have to press them simultaneously, it is a pain.
The problem is, the second shoulder button should be at a different height (lower, in fact) than the first, so the fingers rest over them, instead of having to reach them.
I haven't used the xbox controller. It looks good, though.
Metroid Prime uses a distinct control scheme from other FPSs (as, in fact, it is not a FPS). If you play, lets say, agent under fire or nightfire, you use the left analog to move/strafe and the right one to point (in fact in those games there are several control scheme), and the gamecube controller works just right.
The Z button is horrible.
I can press the X and Y without ever touching the A button, easily. If I want to press both, it is also easily. I guess you are doing something wrong here. I rest my thumb on the big button, without pressing it, and just slide it a little to press the X and Y.
Try pressing any combination of the four main buttons in the dual shock. only square/X, triangle/circle is posible without moving in awkward ways, and even those aren't as easy as pressing A/B A/X A/Y X/Y in the cube. yeah, B/X, B/X, are difficult, but nothing is perfect (if the devss are inteligent, they just need the good combinations...in fact I never have needed to press b/x b/y, except in CVS 2)
Yay, you are right about cable length...I haven't noticed. Maybe you should consider a wavebird?
I have tried to do that, but that position tires my hands quickly. I think that if the Z button were UNDER the R button, it would work perfectly, althought I suspect that in that case there would be a problem with the internal motor.
Also, if innovation or quality or whatever all stems from the controller, I'd love to know why the Gamecube has far and away the nastiest of the controllers for the current generation consoles (well... if we count the S-controller as the X-box controller, rather than the original 2-tonne beast). A malformed right analogue stick, awkwardly placed and erratically sized buttons and a button shortage that makes a lot of cross-platform titles unfeasible has added *sooooo* much to my gaming experience.
Have you actually used the controller, or just looked at the pictures? The buttons are almost perfectly placed (the exception being that %$#! Z button). Yes, they look awkward, but once you take it in your hands, every button fall in place. The triggers adapt to the fingers so the controller never slips from you. The four main buttons have an intuitive layout, that allows to simultaneous pressing very easily. When you compare this to the standard layout of the dual shock, well, dual shock seems like the loser.
The other problem is the small d-pad. However, the only game I can think suffers from this is CVS 2. And most games use it as extra buttons, so there is no button shortage, just ignorance from the developers.
Well, Nintendo got a cool marketing guy. And they are using him. He says a few true things, a few distorted facts (well, lies, like Mario 64 being a pioneer in 3D, although it was an important paramount in gaming), and the guy has style.
If everyone else has entuasiastic PR people, why shouldn't Nintendo? That is the story.
The real memory that matters is the cache one attached to the processor. If a game runs too long, you can always swap in another disk.
In fact, the only use I can see for that much memory, is speech. Although even a DVD (FF X) can store all the speech you need. Other uses should be dismissed. Prerrendered content (be it movies or music) is expensive to produce, not to store, and the levels of detail you need to fill 50GB of prerrendered content (given compression is possible), is unthinkable. at least for most game makers today.
I guess that Sony is just trying to insert a new technology as the standard, via the probable success of the ps3.
You can't do that for cache memory. Remember back in the days when Marvel vs. Capcom games for PS1 couldn't tag in a 2nd character because there wasn't enough cache memory?
In fact, you could have 3 different characters in a fight, meaning that the two players must select one character for common use.
I remember a Miyamoto Interview on Gamespy, in which he comented that the sonic game was excesive, and that it damaged the touch screen from the intense rubbing. He said that they would create guidelines for the use of the touchscreen.
However, lately Nintendo has delivered some very resistent products. SP for example. Gamecube has a rate of failure notably lower than PS2/Xboxes (but it has its problems). So I think that the DS won't have any problem of this kind
For starters, I don't understand why there is a necessity to constantly re-invent the wheel and create gaming engines from scratch just about each time a new game is released. Surely it would be better to throw out the source code to current gaming engines to the Internet community to see what enhancements get added as a result - sure, keep the level design, textures, etc. for a specific commercial game that uses that engine under wraps so that, as a game company, you can make money from it.
Well, simply because every game tries to get the most advantage out of the machine. And for every genre, this "advantage" is diferent. And, as technology advances, new ways of pushing the machine develops.
And because games (as most software) is developed under tight schedules, which doesn't allow for refactoring. Yes, it would do a lot of sense to reuse the old engine, but the old engine was also developed under pressure, and doesn't allow easily to include this new cool feature management wants in the game, so, you rewrite a lot.
Hey, what if we move the wikipedia server, to a far away planet, on the border of the galaxy, so they can work peacefully while the rest of our galactic civilization rots away?
Don't worry, we won't be putting all our eggs in one basket, because we can also put another wikipedia server, in the other side of the galaxy!
If you think that the dual shock is the best gamepad ever made, then you must have never used the official SNES gamepad... which has the best directional pad ever. Sure the dual shock has analog and vibrating feedback, but when it comes to digital controlled games (NES, Gameboy, SNES, Genesis, etc)... the SNES gamepad wins.
I don't think that such a thing as a perfect controller exists yet. I will name my favourites, though:
SNES original controller. Yes, it was sweet. At first the directional pad was very stiff , but after a year of Street Fighting, it reaches a very good sensibility. At the day I thought it was perfect, but nowadays, I think that the 4 main buttons (ybxa) are too separated. If you want one, I recommend you get the ones that came with the Super Nes. The ones sold separately were good only for the first years. After that, they became crap.
Genesis six button controller. Simply put, it had the best directional pad ever. From day one, through five years, it delivered the best sensibility you can get without wiring your brain. The six button layout was good for street fighter, but worthelss for anything else (althoug, I must say that few games supported it). I have heard that the Saturn controller was very similar to this one.
PSX dual shock: I think this one is the evolution of the snes pad. But the controller cross is crap (too hard on the fingers, and bad diagonals). The four main buttons (Circle, Triangle, x and square) are still too separated. And the analog sticks are bad positioned. Four shoulder buttons = genius!.
GC game controller. A great controller. The directional pad is too small, but after some practice I can even do a Final Atomic Buster in CVS2. My friends can't do that though. The Z button is ill positioned (it should be UNDER the R button). The anatomic shoulder buttons are great also, but the lack of another couple of (probably smaller) shoulder buttons hurt it. The four main button layout is PERFECT.
Xbox controller. I haven't used it, but it looks good (the S-type; the original one is too big). It has 6 main buttons, which are very close, and that is good. I have heard that it has the best analog sticks. The shoulder buttons don't look very good, but all those people using them to shoot in Halo aren't complaining (well, they complained about the size, but that it is).
Actually for many older console systems you do get perfect sound and picture. Have you looked into Emulated gaming recently? There are a ton of really good emu's out there and even the oldest systems have new emulators coded for them now and then.
Actually, the sound emulation for snes and genesis (I am sure there are other examples), is far from perfect. Yes, it sounds good, it even may sound better after aplying some filters, but it is not the same sound you got from your snes/genesis. If you really played the original games (or if still you have the real console at your side), you can tell the diference.
(Oh man, I feel like those bastards who aren't happy with 320kbps mp3 compression!)
Slashdot Mirror
I've never known anyone who could make a coherent defense of this premise.
Programmer A and B have two different projects, PA and PB. (they need not to be related projects).
PA uses GPL. PB uses BSD.
Company CA and Company CB come, take PA and PB (respectively), modify them and sell a product based on PA and PB.
PA MUST get the modifications back from CA
PB probably WON'T get anything back from CB
Yeah, PB isn't hurted in any way, if you consider him only, but if you compare his situation with respect to PA, he didn't get a better project, just because he used a BSDesque license.
QED.
If you're a commercial developer competing with other commercial developers, then the GPL might be more appropriate. In such a case you might need the heavy legal club that the GPL lets you wield in order to compete with those wielding heavy proprietary license clubs against you. But don't fall under the illusion that you're doing this in the name of the FSF's "software should not be owned" style of freedom, because you're really doing this for the opposite reason of explicitly asserting ownership over your software.
That is why enterprises who have embraced open source, have not used BSD licenses (yeah, I know there must be exceptions), but gpl (and lgpl) licenses (or equivalents).
And, if I have a hobby project, it is better to release it under GPL, so when someone makes an improvement on it, it is forced to give it back to you. Use BSD, and you will see your project be used for profit, and you getting nothing out of it.
See, even free software advocates can't keep their "frees" straight. You can get cost-free tools from MS for .NET if cost is the issue. You don't get the source, of course, but that's not an economic problem.
This is a language problem. English uses the same word for free as in "gratis" and free as in freedom.
On the other side of the argument, yes, you can get "gratis" tools from MS, but I shouldn't consider them. You know that MS has kept secret functionality in his OS, so their apps run better than competition apps, created on their compilers?
Do you want to give MS that competitive edge?
"GPL makes sense to the programmer, whose business IS producing software, because if you modify a GPLd software, you have no obligation to give it back. But if you modify it AND distribute it (ie, you sell it), you must give it back to the world, under the GPL."(mine)
So it appears you're saying that if your business is producing software but you aren't going to sell it, you don't have to give anything back. So what kind of software business doesn't sell software?(ClosedSource. Yeah, there is auser that is called that way)
I guess I must have qualified better that statement, something more in the lines of "to the willing to cooperate to open source programmer"
If your business is to sell software, it makes a lot of sense to contribute to open source. Because, if you don't you won't have a base to start selling software. I mean, you won't have all those nifty free tools around (gcc, linux, a lot of libraries, etc). Yeah, you can start to buy a lot of licenses, but to the starting entepreneur, it can be a very heavy start. Open source will only survive if people contribute to it. If an open source project conflicts with your product, well, do something else. We don't have to reinvent the wheel every time we want to do a business
To this programmer, your statement makes no sense. If I want to keep my source closed, I keep it to myself. If I want to make my source avaliable, I don't give a rat's ass what people do with it.
Well, it is your choice. A valid one.
I remember a story on slashdot (can't bother to provide a link) about a free nes emulator, whose source code was licensed in a BSDesque way. Jaleco came by and sed this to sell a closed source "game museum", something in vogue nowadays. Because of the license, they didn't have to redistribute their code (well, supposing they changed it in some way). The original author was very happy about this.
Results:
Jaleco was happy? Yes. They got a free emulator (which isn't bad)
The author was happy? Yes, his program was used in a professional way, even if it was one he started as a hobby.
We got a better nes emulator out of this?
NO!
Well, if Jaleco made some work to make a better emulator, comunity lost that work, and some other guy will probably repeat it.
If I incorporate somebody else's code in mine, why would I want to choose GPL'd code with all the restrictions that go with it?
There are a lot of benefits on doing this. I'm not goig to repeat them.
The 'B' in the 'BSD license' means Berkeley. It refers to an University. This University business is not to produce software, but to educate, research, etc.
This means that they do not care what happens with the software produced by them. They wish that people use it, and put almost no barriers to this purpose. This means, in the business context, that modifications done tho the software ARE NOT GIVEN BACK to the comunnity, whatsoever. This makes sense to greedy business house (Microsoft backs FreeBSD's license as "True free software")
GPL makes sense to the programmer, whose business IS producing software, because if you modify a GPLd software, you have no obligation to give it back. But if you modify it AND distribute it (ie, you sell it), you must give it back to the world, under the GPL.
To the programmer, BSD makes no sense. It may make sense to the Universities. Stick with GPL and LGPL
It also had a lot to do with SNES "cleaning up" violent games. You could see blood and exploding skulls on Genesis games, not so on SNES
Yeah, and those games were greater because of that.
Come on, nobody plays mortal kombat today. IT SUCKS. People are still trying to master street fighter 2, the "less violent" one.
Exactly, and programming is just pushing keys on a keyboard and moving a mouse. Honestly, how hard could it be? =)
Well, the"correcting the silly errors" part is the hard one.
First, employers are always looking for people who go above and beyond the bare-minimum, including people who like what they're doing enough to do it even when they aren't paid. That doesn't constitute a paradox. Second, as soon as people widely believe that it is a good standard for hiring programmers (meaning it really is the language to learn to get a job), people will start learning it merely to get a job, so I'm not sure his statement really even makes sense.
It is not a paradox. It makes sense. It is a simple reality from the capitalist economic model.
RTFA! It is a multiplayer online game. There will be a standalone version downloadable. So if you don't want to play against an AI, you don't have to
?! Could you explain in more detail? I have never heard or witnessed something like this. What exactly were you doing with the controller.
Even that might cause problems. The PS2 used the same sollution but has problems of their own.
Maybe i'm just incompetent, but _i_ have difficulty using the R2 and L2 buttons on the PS2 controller with my middle finger. They work fine with index fingers, but for games where i need to press both the 1 and 2 buttons on the same side at once, or switch back and forth quickly between them, i'm totally screwed.
I have no problem using the R2/L2, as long as I can use only one finger to press them. If I have to press them simultaneously, it is a pain.
The problem is, the second shoulder button should be at a different height (lower, in fact) than the first, so the fingers rest over them, instead of having to reach them.
I haven't used the xbox controller. It looks good, though.
Metroid Prime uses a distinct control scheme from other FPSs (as, in fact, it is not a FPS). If you play, lets say, agent under fire or nightfire, you use the left analog to move/strafe and the right one to point (in fact in those games there are several control scheme), and the gamecube controller works just right.
The Z button is horrible.
I can press the X and Y without ever touching the A button, easily. If I want to press both, it is also easily. I guess you are doing something wrong here. I rest my thumb on the big button, without pressing it, and just slide it a little to press the X and Y.
Try pressing any combination of the four main buttons in the dual shock. only square/X, triangle/circle is posible without moving in awkward ways, and even those aren't as easy as pressing A/B A/X A/Y X/Y in the cube. yeah, B/X, B/X, are difficult, but nothing is perfect (if the devss are inteligent, they just need the good combinations...in fact I never have needed to press b/x b/y, except in CVS 2)
Yay, you are right about cable length...I haven't noticed. Maybe you should consider a wavebird?
I have tried to do that, but that position tires my hands quickly. I think that if the Z button were UNDER the R button, it would work perfectly, althought I suspect that in that case there would be a problem with the internal motor.
Also, if innovation or quality or whatever all stems from the controller, I'd love to know why the Gamecube has far and away the nastiest of the controllers for the current generation consoles (well... if we count the S-controller as the X-box controller, rather than the original 2-tonne beast). A malformed right analogue stick, awkwardly placed and erratically sized buttons and a button shortage that makes a lot of cross-platform titles unfeasible has added *sooooo* much to my gaming experience.
Have you actually used the controller, or just looked at the pictures? The buttons are almost perfectly placed (the exception being that %$#! Z button). Yes, they look awkward, but once you take it in your hands, every button fall in place. The triggers adapt to the fingers so the controller never slips from you. The four main buttons have an intuitive layout, that allows to simultaneous pressing very easily. When you compare this to the standard layout of the dual shock, well, dual shock seems like the loser.
The other problem is the small d-pad. However, the only game I can think suffers from this is CVS 2. And most games use it as extra buttons, so there is no button shortage, just ignorance from the developers.
Well, Nintendo got a cool marketing guy. And they are using him. He says a few true things, a few distorted facts (well, lies, like Mario 64 being a pioneer in 3D, although it was an important paramount in gaming), and the guy has style.
If everyone else has entuasiastic PR people, why shouldn't Nintendo? That is the story.
It's even more expensive to me to get this setup...
I have a GBA AND NO CAR!
The fact that you have a link to a Master of Orion clone on your Sig, puts your post on another light.
(Hey, what if instead of contacting some civilization, we contact the Guardian of Orion?)
The real memory that matters is the cache one attached to the processor. If a game runs too long, you can always swap in another disk.
In fact, the only use I can see for that much memory, is speech. Although even a DVD (FF X) can store all the speech you need. Other uses should be dismissed. Prerrendered content (be it movies or music) is expensive to produce, not to store, and the levels of detail you need to fill 50GB of prerrendered content (given compression is possible), is unthinkable. at least for most game makers today.
I guess that Sony is just trying to insert a new technology as the standard, via the probable success of the ps3.
You can't do that for cache memory. Remember back in the days when Marvel vs. Capcom games for PS1 couldn't tag in a 2nd character because there wasn't enough cache memory?
In fact, you could have 3 different characters in a fight, meaning that the two players must select one character for common use.
When 640Kb should be enough for everyone?
(Yeah I know I am mixing ram with disk size here, but it is a joke. Laugh)
I remember a Miyamoto Interview on Gamespy, in which he comented that the sonic game was excesive, and that it damaged the touch screen from the intense rubbing. He said that they would create guidelines for the use of the touchscreen.
However, lately Nintendo has delivered some very resistent products. SP for example. Gamecube has a rate of failure notably lower than PS2/Xboxes (but it has its problems). So I think that the DS won't have any problem of this kind
For starters, I don't understand why there is a necessity to constantly re-invent the wheel and create gaming engines from scratch just about each time a new game is released. Surely it would be better to throw out the source code to current gaming engines to the Internet community to see what enhancements get added as a result - sure, keep the level design, textures, etc. for a specific commercial game that uses that engine under wraps so that, as a game company, you can make money from it.
Well, simply because every game tries to get the most advantage out of the machine. And for every genre, this "advantage" is diferent. And, as technology advances, new ways of pushing the machine develops.
And because games (as most software) is developed under tight schedules, which doesn't allow for refactoring. Yes, it would do a lot of sense to reuse the old engine, but the old engine was also developed under pressure, and doesn't allow easily to include this new cool feature management wants in the game, so, you rewrite a lot.
Hey, what if we move the wikipedia server, to a far away planet, on the border of the galaxy, so they can work peacefully while the rest of our galactic civilization rots away?
Don't worry, we won't be putting all our eggs in one basket, because we can also put another wikipedia server, in the other side of the galaxy!
Wait for Spaceworld.
:(
You will be waiting a long time. Nintendo won't be making spaceworld this year
If you think that the dual shock is the best gamepad ever made, then you must have never used the official SNES gamepad... which has the best directional pad ever. Sure the dual shock has analog and vibrating feedback, but when it comes to digital controlled games (NES, Gameboy, SNES, Genesis, etc)... the SNES gamepad wins.
I don't think that such a thing as a perfect controller exists yet. I will name my favourites, though:
SNES original controller. Yes, it was sweet. At first the directional pad was very stiff , but after a year of Street Fighting, it reaches a very good sensibility. At the day I thought it was perfect, but nowadays, I think that the 4 main buttons (ybxa) are too separated. If you want one, I recommend you get the ones that came with the Super Nes. The ones sold separately were good only for the first years. After that, they became crap.
Genesis six button controller. Simply put, it had the best directional pad ever. From day one, through five years, it delivered the best sensibility you can get without wiring your brain. The six button layout was good for street fighter, but worthelss for anything else (althoug, I must say that few games supported it). I have heard that the Saturn controller was very similar to this one.
PSX dual shock: I think this one is the evolution of the snes pad. But the controller cross is crap (too hard on the fingers, and bad diagonals). The four main buttons (Circle, Triangle, x and square) are still too separated. And the analog sticks are bad positioned. Four shoulder buttons = genius!.
GC game controller. A great controller. The directional pad is too small, but after some practice I can even do a Final Atomic Buster in CVS2. My friends can't do that though. The Z button is ill positioned (it should be UNDER the R button). The anatomic shoulder buttons are great also, but the lack of another couple of (probably smaller) shoulder buttons hurt it. The four main button layout is PERFECT.
Xbox controller. I haven't used it, but it looks good (the S-type; the original one is too big). It has 6 main buttons, which are very close, and that is good. I have heard that it has the best analog sticks. The shoulder buttons don't look very good, but all those people using them to shoot in Halo aren't complaining (well, they complained about the size, but that it is).
Actually for many older console systems you do get perfect sound and picture. Have you looked into Emulated gaming recently? There are a ton of really good emu's out there and even the oldest systems have new emulators coded for them now and then.
Actually, the sound emulation for snes and genesis (I am sure there are other examples), is far from perfect. Yes, it sounds good, it even may sound better after aplying some filters, but it is not the same sound you got from your snes/genesis. If you really played the original games (or if still you have the real console at your side), you can tell the diference.
(Oh man, I feel like those bastards who aren't happy with 320kbps mp3 compression!)