Egyptian TV News Uses Video Game Footage As Proof Of Russian Precision Strikes Against ISIL

from the game-theory dept

Attention news agencies of Planet Earth. This is an all points bulletin for your benefit: stop passing off video game footage as real-life-happenings. Yes, what seems like a thing that shouldn't be able to happen has actually happened several times in the past, from video game footage passed off as a terrorist attack to state news agencies passing off video game footage as a potential threat to a nation's enemies. Some nations appear to even be trying to take advantage of it all, such as when Russia tried to sucker world news groups into thinking that it had found proof that America is arming Ukrainians with video game footage of a weapons cache. And, yet, it keeps happening.

The latest case is an Egyptian news agency bizarrely using footage from a Russian-made video game, Apache: Air Assault, published by Activision and featuring english-speaking characters, to proclaim Russian dominance against ISIS in Syria.

Now, I realize there are cultural and linguistic barriers here, but it shouldn't be terribly hard to understand that the voices in that footage are speaking English. And, though video games are becoming more realistic by the day, the footage and audio here is still video-game-ish enough that it's fairly easy to identify it as such with just a few minutes' watching. And yet, anchor Ahmed Moussa had this to say before airing the footage.

"Yes, this is Russia; this is the Russian army. This is Putin," he said. "This is the Russian federation. Are they confronting terrorism? Yes, they are. The Americans were too soft on ISIL. The US has been there for a year and a half, and we have seen not one bullet from them, nor have we seen anyone getting killed by them."

I'll give Moussa points for originality. After all, it's not every day you hear lamentations from the Middle East that Americans just aren't killing enough people.

Filed Under: egypt, footage, isis, news, russia, syria, video games

Bobby Jindal Announces Violent Games/Movies To Blame For All Those Mass Shootings

from the wrong dept

Not long ago, I wrote a post about the aftermath of the Oregon mass shooting and how every media outlet would retreat to familiar stances looking to blame all manner of things on idealogical grounds. That, of course, happened. Left out of that post is how grandstanding politicians would do the same: shifting attention toward familiar punching bags while diverting attention from other targets in their own interests. One of the first to do so, as it turns out, is Bobby Jindal, who certainly doesn't get any points for originality in trotting out the violent media scapegoat to sate some of the public's need to place blame for the shooting.

First on his hitlist was Hollywood.

We glorify sick and senseless acts of violence in virtually every element of our pop culture, and we have been doing that for at least a generation. Our movies and TV shows feature a continuous stream of grotesque killing of every kind imaginable. And this is true of virtually every genre, from horror to drama to comedy. We celebrate and document every kind of deviant behavior and we give out awards to producers who can push the envelope as far as possible. Rape, torture, murder, mass murder, all are cinematic achievements.

This, obviously, is overstating things by several orders of magnitude. First, it's noteworthy that Jindal's suggestion that violent movies, ever ramping up, cause violence within the real world fly in the face of simple statistical analysis. The national murder rate, for instance, is roughly 60% of what it was in the 1970s. Does anyone want to argue that movies have become less violent since the 70s? I didn't think so. But, assuming that Jindal is solely talking about the mass shooting phenomenon, the data doesn't get any better for Jindal. An otherwise dumb opinion piece at National Review at least helpfully included the fact that, when taking the long view and looking at mass shooting incidents over the past century, they are no more common today than in the past. In fact, the high water mark for mass killings looks to have been achieved in the 1920s. Again, anyone want to argue that media in the 20s was more violent than it is today? I didn't think so.

I shouldn't have to say this, but none of this is to suggest that America doesn't have a very real violence and mass killing problem. We do. But it simply doesn't correlate to violence in movies. Nor in video games, which were Jindal's second target.

We have generations of young boys who were raised on video games where they compete with other young boys around the country and the world to see who can kill the most humans. We make it so fun, so realistic, so sensational.

Oh, we make sure that we stop them from bullying at school, but we are completely fine with them watching people get murdered and raped on the internet after school, and we are willing to let them go to the basement and join a fantasy world where they pretend they are killing people for 2 hours after school.

Quick show of hands: who is totally chill with their children watching people get murdered and raped on the internet after school every day? Actually, what the hell is Jindal talking about here? I'm fairly connected in the world of internet-ing, and I'm also a father, and I have no idea what Jindal is referring to. Where is this place where kids go to sit and watch people get raped and tortured? Is he referring to video games here, as he does in his culminating line, where kids are sitting down and super-murdering digital humans for 2 hours every day? Because does that really happen, either? Keep in mind, for all the hand-wringing over violent video games, the average age of the average gamer is going up and currently stands at something like "probably balding or in mid-management by now." For youths that find themselves playing games meant for adults, that's strictly a parenting issue, not a culture issue (for all the reasons described for violent movies above). And, regardless, there's nothing even remotely close to a scientific consensus that violent video games have any negative effect on children at all. In fact, many studies indicate there is no link between gaming and violence at all.

So what is this? Well, it's a politician employing the aftermath of tragedy to gain support, headlines, and attention so as to better compete with a god damned reality show host in a presidential election cycle. And if that doesn't make you sick, no amount of violence in movies or games will either.

Filed Under: blame, bobby jindal, mass shooting, moral panic, movies, oregon shooting, video games, violence

Train Simulator 2016 And How We've Reached The Crest Of The Dumb DLC Wave

from the dlc-all-that-money dept

We only occasionally talk about video game DLC, or downloadable content, here at Techdirt. When digital distribution became a thing some years back, game makers came up with DLC as a way to achieve several goals: extend the shelf-life of games, make games more saleable through the promise of extra content, and, of course, make more money. I remember when the wave of DLC started and the general negative reaction brought by the gaming public to it. Most concerns centered around game makers charging for features that once were included in the games for the original asking price. Some makers legitimized these concerns through their actions, but others did wonderful things with DLC that gamers would not wish to be without. But, as Hunter S. Thompson once imagined he could see the crest of hippie culture along the Rocky Mountains before its eventual recession, I too can see the crest of DLC greed in our time in the insanity of Train Simulator 2016's laughable DLC offerings.

This all becomes evident as Kotaku's Alex Walker went on a quest to find the most ridiculous DLC costs for games on the market today.

My first thought was the Dynasty Warriors series. They, like many anime brawlers, have an absurd amount of costume and armour packages that are far more expensive than they should be. But then I came across Train Simulator 2016: Steam Edition. It’s US$45, which is fairly standard for niche titles with a hardcore fanbase. Dovetail Games were even generous enough to have a special on the DLC. And then I saw how much DLC there was.

As you can see at the bottom of the image, there are 230 available DLC options for sale. Next to it is an option to see them all. Walker saw them all. The results, and keep in mind that most of these are on sale for nearly half off, are hilariously expensive.

Yes, that's over $3,000 if you were to buy all of the game's DLC when most of it is on sale. None of this is to say, of course, that a game maker can't charge what they like for their game, their DLC, their box art, their communications, their support, or anything else. They most certainly can. But what this should herald for most of us is the ultimate example of DLC done wrong. Whatever costs and effort might go into making a game, the end result shouldn't be the cost of a used car in payment for the full content. There are ways to DLC right and it's not evil to charge for great content, but this kind of thing we see above is so far removed from how games were charged for only a few years ago that it's plainly obvious that something ain't right here.

Filed Under: business models, content, dlc, downloadable content, train simulator, train simulator 2016, video games

DailyDirt: Can't We Just Play Games For Fun?

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

We've seen plenty of advances in game algorithms that make us humans look pretty weak compared to the best chess (and checkers and poker and RPS and air hockey and Flappy bird and...) playing computers. Computers aren't having any fun beating us at all these games, but they do it nonetheless. As always, let's just hope they figure out quickly that no one wins at thermonuclear war.

• It seems a bit irrational for humans to keep playing a game that a computer can play better than 99.999999% of all humans, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to create better and better chess playing algorithms. A deep learning program called Giraffe has taught itself how to play chess at an FIDE International Master level in just three days (on a modern mainstream PC, not a supercomputer). It's not playing at a (super-)Grandmaster level yet, but it's also not evaluating millions of moves per second like Deep Blue and other chess supercomputers can. [url]
• Google's DeepMind AI is beating humans at more classic video games -- now up to 31 titles, such as Q*Bert and Zaxxon. However, it hasn't yet mastered games like Ms. Pac-Man or Asteroids. Phew! We're not obsolete yet.... [url]
• If you think humans are safe by sticking to sports like soccer, basketball or baseball, you might want to see a few robots in development for playing some of these sports. It might take some time for robots to catch up, but I doubt anyone really wants to play any kind of full-contact sport against a robot, anyway. [url]

After you've finished checking out those links, take a look at our Daily Deals for cool gadgets and other awesome stuff.

Filed Under: ai, artificial intelligence, chess, deep blue, deepmind, game algorithms, robotics, robots, sports, video games
Companies: google, ibm

DRM Still Breaking Games Nearly A Decade After Purchase

from the call-it-what-it-really-is:-gaping-security-holes dept

About a month ago, Microsoft's Boris Schneider-Johne explained that -- along with everything else Windows 10 was bringing to the party (privacy invasion, blocking of pirated software) -- it would also be bricking certain paid-for software. Two early -- and much-hated -- forms of DRM just simply didn't play nice with the new operating system: SecuROM and Safedisc.

"Everything that ran in Windows 7 should also run in Windows 10," said Johne, "There are just two silly exceptions: antivirus software, and stuff that’s deeply embedded into the system needs updating—but the developers are on it already—and then there are old games on CD-ROM that have DRM. This DRM stuff is also deeply embedded in your system, and that’s where Windows 10 says, 'Sorry, we cannot allow that, because that would be a possible loophole for computer viruses.' That’s why there are a couple of games from 2003-2008 with SecuROM, etc. that simply don’t run without a no-CD patch or some such."

This was great news for purchasers of these games, who had already been screwed once by the inclusion of DRM. Now, the DRM is considered a security flaw and their older games would no longer be playable on a computer running Windows 10. The purposefully-flawed software "protected" software companies from piracy (well, not really...) but left paying purchasers exposed.

The problem continues. As Microsoft seeks to seal more security holes, it's patching up earlier versions of its OS. So, people using older operating systems -- and playing even older games -- are now going to find their purchased software similarly useless.

A recent security patch released this month, MS15-097 Vulnerabilities in Microsoft Graphics Component Could Allow Remote Code Execution, breaks computer games that rely on the DRM system Safedisc on Microsoft's Windows Vista, Windows 7 and Windows 8 operating system.

Games that rely on Safedisc include the Age of Empire series, Battlefield 1942, Civilization 3, various Command and Conquer games or Microsoft Flight Simulator. These are all old games released more than 10 years ago but still playable on modern systems.

Microsoft has been so kind as to post a workaround that uses the Command Prompt to open/close the insecure driver to allow the games to be played. This workaround can also be applied permanently, but Microsoft recommends against this because it also re-opens the security hole permanently. And, once again, it's the paying customers who no longer have access -- or at least easy access -- to their purchases.

Now, one could argue that the damage done here is minimal. The games are old and very few Windows users will still be playing them. But justifying DRM by claiming it only affects a small number of people is a pretty terrible argument. No one necessarily expects 10-year-old software to adapt flawlessly to new operating systems, but they don't expect to be completely locked out of their purchases by security updates either.

It's not like purchasers expect this sort of behavior from other products they've purchased. A fifty-year-old book can be read just as easily as one printed last week, no matter how much printing technology has advanced over the past five decades. A board game can still be enjoyed years after its purchase, no matter how much game manufacturers would like you to purchase their newer offerings. Software shouldn't be an exception to the rule. But it is, thanks to DRM.

The fact that these two forms of DRM are considered vulnerabilities by the dominant operating system in the PC market says a lot about the software companies' priorities. It's a short-sighted viewpoint that only considers the first few weeks of sales. Anything these companies can do to protect these is considered excusable, even if it makes paying customers unhappy -- either immediately after their purchase, or several years down the road.

Filed Under: drm, safedisc, securom, video games, windows 10
Companies: microsoft

Court Rules Gran Turismo Protected By 1st Amendment In Including Company Logos For Realism

from the track-speech dept

Ever since video games got to a point of enough realism, how those games depict real-life locations and real life "props" has become an interesting question due to, of course, trademark law. Electronic Arts recently stepped into this question, for entirely unrelated reasons, when it announced it was no longer going to ask for permission to depict realistic and branded weapons in its shooting games. The question has always been more prevalent in the world of sports games, however, with stadiums named for advertising partners and advertising depicted all over the stadiums and equipment within the sport.

Well, we've got another case of a video game producer attempting to rely on First Amendment protections to be able to depict a third party brand within its game, as Gran Turismo made use of Italian flooring company Virag's logo for realistic effect. And, according to the outcome between Virag and Sony in California, the First Amendment wins.

Virag is an Italian flooring manufacturer -- and it also sponsors car races. Its name and logo have appeared on tracks in Sony's realism-obsessed Gran Turismo games, as seen in the image above, and the company sued Sony in California -- but a judge just tossed out most of Virag's claims.

With this order, the First Amendment status of video games as an expressive medium continues to be upheld. "Gran Turismo 5 and Gran Turismo 6 are expressive works that qualify for First Amendment protection," judge Laurel Beeler wrote.

This is good news on several levels. To start, having a judge slap down an obnoxious attempt by a company to sue over the depiction of that company's brand, essentially free advertising, is always welcome. Add to that the further cementing of video games as a medium of expressive art, something that really ought to have been settled in the minds of the masses by now. And, finally, anything that gives game developers a greater sense of freedom to pursue realism with less regard for the insane permission culture that has invaded the arts works for me as well.

As a few commentators have pointed out, Sony likely prevailed because the case was heard in the US, where we have fair use provisions with some actual teeth, compared with the EU where, if anything, the culture of permission is even greater. I would argue that if a region's intellectual property law is such that companies feel emboldened to try to end what is essentially free advertising within art, some revisions to those laws are needed.

Filed Under: first amendment, gran turismo, logos, realism, video games
Companies: sony, virag

The Full Counter-Argument To Game Studios Claiming A Need For DRM: The Witcher 3

from the how-it's-done dept

DRM, or digital rights management, can be said to have been effective in practice at accomplishing many different things. It makes products less useful, for instance. It also serves as chaff to distract the technically proficient into disabling it instead of doing any number of actually useful things. DRM is also actually quite good at making our lives just a bit less safe. What's interesting is that none of those things are the stated reason companies use DRM. Instead, DRM is explained by companies as the only way they can protect themselves from damned dirty pirates and, without it, these companies would simply not be able to make enough money to sustain themselves.

The proper counter-argument to this assertion, as it turns out, is: "Shut up, because The Witcher 3."

The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt has proven to be incredibly successful for CD Projekt RED, having sold a whopping six million copies within its first six weeks on store shelves. According to CD Projekt's latest financial results (via NeoGAF), the company earned 237 million PLN ($63.3 million USD) in net profit for the first half of 2015. The publisher also noted its open-world RPG has performed well both at retail and digitally.

Yes, a game publisher, one which released its game both in retail and in the scary, scary digital realm, has spent six weeks selling an insane amount of copies of its latest game. But how is this possible? After all, CD Projekt RED long ago promised that the game would be shipped completely sans DRM. On top of that, the company also made every last tiny drop of DLC for the game...completely free. In other words, CD Projekt RED decided bucking one modern trend in gaming was too easy so it decided to go for an exacta. Were the theory that lies behind every other instance of DRM in gaming existence to be true, the game should have been a failure everywhere other than on dastardly pirate sites. Instead, the game sold six million copies in six weeks. How is this possible?

It's actually quite simple: CD Projekt RED made a fantastic and well-reviewed game, didn't hamper customers with annoying DRM or pushy microtransactions, and then went about its victory lap with about as classy and gracious an open-letter from its studio head that I can remember seeing.

One could think we have six million reasons to be happy and that’s it. We do, but that number is also a big responsibility and I want everyone to know that we, as a studio, realize that. For us, all your high praise, all the positive reviews, are also an obligation -- we’ve made a really good game but there’s still a long road ahead of us. Everyone here in CD PROJEKT RED is really attached to their work and how you, the gamers, perceive it. RED is full of artists, wild dreamers and people crazy about what they do (and sometimes just plain crazy). We lose sleep over that particular colour the sun has when it sets over Velen, and argue over arranging the furniture in a house the majority of gamers will probably never see. We’re not the kind of people who are easily satisfied and we always strive for more. I’d like you to know that.

Yes, six million copies is a great achievement for a company making RPGs, but this business is not only about that. If our games are a gallery of sound, picture and text - you are the visitors of this gallery. To an artist, there’s no sweeter sight than people enjoying their work. That’s why, in the name of all the devs in the studio, I’d like to say thanks to each and every one of you.  

Thanks!

Adam Badowski,
Head of Studio
CD PROJEKT RED

This is how CwF+RtB is done. In fact, the studio has always had a reputation for being open and awesome to its customers. The release of this game, the lack of DRM, the free DLC, and the gracious attitude is merely a continuation of a culture that fans and gamers are naturally going to gravitate towards. And so they buy. Of course they buy. That they buy isn't the surprise. Instead, the surprise is how difficult to understand this all apparently is for the other gaming studios still traveling a different road.

Filed Under: drm, video games, witcher 3
Companies: cd projekt, cd projekt red

200-Plus Scholars Speak Out Against American Psychological Association's Violence/Gaming Study

from the dissension-in-the-ranks dept

We've been covering stories here about studies and claims linking real-world violence and video games for about as long as I've been a reader/writer. An even cursory review of our own record can only lead a reader to conclude that such links are, at best, nebulous, and are perhaps less likely than likely to exist. When coupled with some recent and fascinating revelations about just how easy it is to get a study to say exactly what you want it to say, and to get that study published and reported in supposedly reputable arenas, we're left with the troubling impression that such studies linking violence and gaming are more back-patting endeavors than they are true intellectual efforts.

With that in mind, you may have heard of a recent American Psychology Association report that strongly affirms the link between gaming and aggression, which is in this context meant to be synonymous with violence. This was the product of the APA's task force for studying the existence of such a link. It might represent a scientific victory for those who have long claimed that such a link exists, were it not for the predictably massive problems associated with the task force, the studies it took into account, and the methodology for the conclusions it drew. These problems are evidenced by the over two hundred academics who have submitted an open letter to the APA sharing their collective concerns over how this all went down.

One of those signees, Stetson University psychology professor Chris Ferguson, spoke with Game Informer, detailing the problems with the task force. Among those problems are details such as the task force being mostly comprised of scholars who have demonstrated in the past a willingness to link violence and aggression, the measures they used for aggression, and task force members having previously publicly supported legislation aimed at keeping games away from children.

Ferguson tells me that of the seven task force members, four had at anti-media leanings, with another that uses aggression measures that have been called into question by some factions of the psychology community. "To some degree, they're really commenting on their own product," he says. "I think people interpret these things as neutral. You have to remember that they are commenting on their own product. These are people looking at their own research and declaring it beyond further debate. All of us would love to do that, but we don't really get that chance, nor should we."

He also notes that all seven members of the task force were over the age of 50, citing a correlation between views on media and age. "I point that out because there is solid evidence that age is a correlate for attitudes about video games, even amongst scholars," Ferguson explains. "Age and negative attitudes toward youth predict anti-game attitudes."

For those of us that worship at the altar of science, this serves as a welcome reminder that science is only as good as those conducting it. Bias is omnipresent and omnidirectional and it is something we must always be vigilant against. For instance, cited in the open letter is the fact that the APA previously stated as a matter of policy that violent games should see a reduced exposure to children and that the APA had already made recommendations to the gaming industry about exactly how violence should be portrayed in games, specifically suggesting that real-world consequences should be visited upon violent actors in digital media.

In other words, as the letter states, the APA task force essentially reached the conclusion that the APA's previous work and recommendations were on point, using a hand-picked team comprised of researchers perfectly biased to reach just that conclusion. Adding to the letter's concern over some of the sloppy methodology for drawing the task force's conclusions is the kind of simple real-world analysis of data that has me wondering just how any of this made it past the APA's review to begin with.

Ferguson and his colleagues also point to data evidencing a decrease in youth violence, which contradicts assertions that media (video games and non-interactive forms) are a public health concern. Ferguson cites colleagues at Oxford, Villanova, Western Michigan University, and more that have presented recent findings in peer-reviewed journals. These studies indicate that there is no connection between violent video games and aggression. A study by Patrick Markey at Villanova indicates that "participants who were not angry tended to be relatively unaffected by exposure to violent video games."

In other words, at the exact moment that the APA suggests violence and video games are linked, and at the exact moment that violent video games have exploded in popularity and dissemination, violence amongst youth (and the general public) is trending downward. One would think that if a link existed, we might see some evidence of it outside of ham-fisted studies utilizing questionable methodologies.

But, alas, this is the way of things. And you should expect this to continue, probably right up to the point when most of the research of this issue is being done by a generation in which gaming was prevalent in their youth. Then the studies will likely show something more interesting than a self-created echo-chamber of moral outrage.

Filed Under: academics, scholars, studies, video games, violence
Companies: american psychological association

EA: Complaints About On-Disc DLC Are 'Nonsense'

from the tomato,-tomahto dept

We've long discussed how game downloadable content (DLC) can be done right, but more often than not it's done very, very wrong. On the positive side you have CD Projekt Red, who recently decided to offer two free pieces of DLC for The Witcher 3 every week for months, helping to build a positive relationship with fans while keeping the game consistently in the public (and media's) eye. More often than not however you have efforts like Bungie's recent flubs with Destiny, or Ubisoft's pretty but incredibly shitty DLC approach to Assasin's Creed, Unity.

And then there's EA, whose quality control issues, treatment of employees and obsession with low-value microtransactions are now legendary in the gaming industry. The company has made nickel and diming DLC high art, at times stuffing $60 launch titles with dozens of pieces of DLC at $5 or more a pop -- already embedded on the disc. Whether you like this idea or not, there's little debate that EA has quite often pushed the idea of microtransactions too far.

But what you might call obnoxious and greedy, EA COO Peter Moore continues to call "innovative value proposition." Speaking recently to Gamespot, Moore quite-proudly proclaimed that it's "nonsense" to believe publishers sell incomplete titles in order to make money off of missing content:

"A lot of that resistance comes from the erroneous belief that somehow companies will ship a game incomplete, and then try to sell you stuff they have already made and held back. Nonsense. You come and stand where I am, next to Visceral's studio, and you see the work that is being done right now. And it's not just DLC, this is free updates and ongoing balance changes."

Well, one, things like "free updates" and "balance changes" are part of routine maintenance for a title, and since they often involve fixing bugs -- aren't really part of the conversation. Still, Moore would prefer it if gamers thought about future EA DLC as if it were "APIs," not content already on the disc that customers should have gotten with the original game:

"Think of them as APIs," he said. "Knowing down the road that something needs to sit on what you've already made, means you have to put some foundations down. What people are confused about is they think DLC is secretly on the disc, and that it's somehow unlocked when we say."

And sure, Moore's not entirely wrong. Many are quick to point out that in modern game development, DLC quite often runs parallel and separate from core game design, and the core structure of DLC developed at a later date often exists on disc to make integration easier. Few deny that, and DLC can certainly be done well. But DLC did in fact start with many developers shaving core content off of the original game to make an extra buck, and there's little doubt that many titles are left intentionally sparse so users need to acquire pricey DLC to fully flesh them out. Moore also ignores the unholy atrocity that is pre-order DLC bonuses, which involves only being able to get a vast array of content if you pre-order from select vendors.

Cumulatively, the frequency of poorly-implemented microtransactions is still annoying, and it's certainly not "nonsense" if the modern gamer feels that the value proposition of many modern titles from AAA developers has slowly been circling the toilet. On the flip side, it has been interesting to watch the resistance to poorly-implemented DLC slowly erode over the years. Back in 2011, gamer disdain for nickel and dime DLC was utterly palpable. During the first quarter of this year, "extra content" generated roughly $921 million out of EA’s total digital revenue of $2.2 billion, meaning there are plenty of people who now either think DLC offers a great value position or have more disposable income than brains. I personally ignore 99.7% of all DLC.

Granted Moore is the same guy who tried to argue that EA won Consumerist's "The Worst Company In America" poll simply because it's big. And EA is the same company that consumes talented developers and shits out broken dreams as a matter of course. As such, EA's probably the last one gamers should ask when trying to differentiate value from a heaping $5 pile of nonsensical, supplementary horse excrement.

Filed Under: dlc, downloadable content, video games
Companies: ea

Retro Games Industry Booming Despite Pirate-Options Being Super Available

from the breaking-the-myth dept

We've all heard it before: [industry X] can't compete in the marketplace because the public just wants everything for free. It's a mantra taken up by the film industry, the recording industry, the literary industry, and the video game industry. And, almost always, we've found that the mantra is complete nonsense. Instead, it's been clear that the public is more than willing to purchase that which is scarce and valued. It's just that those scarce and valued things are often times not the content itself.

The retro-gaming industry is instructive in this for two reasons. Piracy is typically much easier for retro games than modern titles. Most of the older consoles have been fully emulated at this point, with ROMs and games readily available for them online. For older PC titles, retro games often have no DRM or have been cracked so long ago that the cracked files are also readily available. In addition, retro titles aren't policed the same way that modern releases are. And, yet, despite all of that, or perhaps because of it, the retro-gaming industry is exploding.

Sites like GOG.com and Steam's client offer old games with smaller pricetags. The major console-makers like Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft all have their own marketplaces for digital downloads of retro games. Those marketplaces must be doing quite well, considering that the consoles and publishers continue to support them and expand the retro-game catalogs. And, for the actual old products, the interest and prices for retro-game pieces are skyrocketing.

Giulio Graziani says it makes him feel a bit like a drug dealer, even though he's not buying anything illegal. It's part of his job digging up a steady supply of video games from the 1980s and 1990s for his store, VideoGamesNewYork, which specializes in everything from Atari and Gameboy to rare prototype NES cartridges.

Graziani, 50, has been in business since 2003, but says the market only recently began to spike. "Five years ago, I could drive through Texas and stop in little towns and buy everything," he says. "Now they're selling games out there for more than I do!" Even simple pieces, like The Legend of Zelda Ocarina of Time, which cost $12 in 2010, now go for $25. More coveted games, like Nintendo's Earthbound, can fetch hundreds of dollars, even thousands if they're in the original box.

It's always been this way. Collectors of art will always pay for original pieces, or for the items that go along with the actual content. If the public simply wanted everything for free when it came to gaming, anyone could go on the internet and get an emulator and a copy of The Legend of Zelda and have at it. But, of course, there are scarce items that go along with the collectables that can't be downloaded, and so the prices are paid, even as they rise. And it's not peanuts we're talking about here. Estimates for how big the retro-gaming market is come in at something like $200 million per year.

For those who aren't collectors, however, there's still a reason to buy.

Luckily, for a casual retro gamer, there are some cheap solutions to get a quick dose of nostalgia. Nintendo's Virtual Console allows you to download classic titles to play on the Wii U or Nintendo 3DS. The Retron 5 console by Hyperkin sells for $159.99 and supports games for 10 systems, including NES, SNES, Famicom, SENES, Genesis and Game Boy.

Add to that GOG and Steam, along with the old-game marketplace Sony and Microsoft offer, and the RtB here should be clear: ease of purchase and the platform. Much like it is understood that iTunes is attractive because of the platform, rather than the music catalog that is also available via piracy, so do gamers appreciate the convenience offered by these marketplaces. Which is why they're growing and selling more and more.

If anything should signal the end of the "everyone wants everything for free" myth, let it be retro-gaming.

Filed Under: compete with free, free, markets, retro games, sales, video games