PDA

View Full Version : Apple requiring games to be repurchased for new iPods




mosx
Sep 18, 2007, 10:42 PM
http://www.ilounge.com/index.php/news/comments/apple-ipod-game-buyers-re-purchase-for-classic-3g-nano/11463

Nice move by Apple there.

This is something I expected from Microsoft or EA. Not from Apple.

Well, I already sent off an email to sjobs@apple.com to express my feelings.

I encourage everyone, not just those who purchased games previously, to write and complain about how bad of a move this is.

To me, this really is no different than being required to repurchase music from iTunes because of a DRM change.



Plutonius
Sep 19, 2007, 07:17 AM
The games are most likely total re-writes and I would expect that you would have to buy a new version for the newest iPods. If the games are important for you, buy new ones. Otherwise, just stick with your old iPod and enjoy the games you currently have.

Shorties
Sep 19, 2007, 07:38 AM
I sent a letter to iTunes support complaining about the fact that you have to rebuy the games, we will see if they will give me the update for free, I hope so.

NightStorm
Sep 19, 2007, 07:57 AM
You own the game for the platform you bought on it originally. That would be like demanding that a game company give you a free copy of the PS3 version of a game you already own for the Xbox 360 because you already bought it once.

It doesn't work that way.

logicalnoise
Sep 19, 2007, 08:19 AM
You own the game for the platform you bought on it originally. That would be like demanding that a game company give you a free copy of the PS3 version of a game you already own for the Xbox 360 because you already bought it once.

It doesn't work that way.
I'd agree except I'm sure apple would oppose us generating our own code to emulate or patch the older gen builds of these games. IPOD is a generic platform. Ye sit does evolve constantly and is constantly blocking out 3rd party apllications. However unless Apple stops supportting one of it's products there has always been compatibility. Appleworks for instance worked on OSIX as well as OSX.

Shorties
Sep 19, 2007, 08:22 AM
You own the game for the platform you bought on it originally. That would be like demanding that a game company give you a free copy of the PS3 version of a game you already own for the Xbox 360 because you already bought it once.

It doesn't work that way.

Thats a terrible analogy, MS and Sony are completely different companies. and the hardware is designed totally differently, (Lets say we are talking about Assassins Creed) It's a completely different game on the PS3 compared to the 360 because of the drastic difference in hardware. I own a Gameboy, I also own a Gameboy Color, My Gameboy Games are perfectly compatible in the gameboy color, and the gameboy advance for that matter. My Xbox games are compatable in my 360 (Well some are :( ) and my PS1 and PS2 games are perfectly compatible in a PS3 (If I bought one). There is no reason that apple should not offer free updates to make previous games I purchased work in my new iPod (Its not like I am going to carry my old iPod around just to keep the games). As a consumer it makes no sense that I would have to rebuy all the games I already bought, its not like I have to rebuy all the movies and music I purchased off iTunes every time I get a new iPod.

Plutonius
Sep 19, 2007, 11:41 AM
Thats a terrible analogy, MS and Sony are completely different companies. and the hardware is designed totally differently, (Lets say we are talking about Assassins Creed) It's a completely different game on the PS3 compared to the 360 because of the drastic difference in hardware. I own a Gameboy, I also own a Gameboy Color, My Gameboy Games are perfectly compatible in the gameboy color, and the gameboy advance for that matter. My Xbox games are compatable in my 360 (Well some are :( ) and my PS1 and PS2 games are perfectly compatible in a PS3 (If I bought one). There is no reason that apple should not offer free updates to make previous games I purchased work in my new iPod (Its not like I am going to carry my old iPod around just to keep the games). As a consumer it makes no sense that I would have to rebuy all the games I already bought, its not like I have to rebuy all the movies and music I purchased off iTunes every time I get a new iPod.

Check the latest MacRumors story on the iPod teardown. The new iPod contains completely different hardware then the previous iPod version. Thus the comparison between the 360 and PS3 is valid. Apple would have had to do a complete re-write of the games in order to run on the new iPods. I agreed 100% with those that were complaining about the iPhone price drop but I think those that are complaining about paying for the games are wrong. Just pay your $5.00 .

Note - Your movies and music are files in a standard format while your games are programs that are dependant on your hardware. Comparing the games to the music / video is not a valid comparison.

logicalnoise
Sep 19, 2007, 11:58 AM
Check the latest MacRumors story on the iPod teardown. The new iPod contains completely different hardware then the previous iPod version. Thus the comparison between the 360 and PS3 is valid. Apple would have had to do a complete re-write of the games in order to run on the new iPods. I agreed 100% with those that were complaining about the iPhone price drop but I think those that are complaining about paying for the games are wrong. Just pay your $5.00 .

Note - Your movies and music are files in a standard format while your games are programs that are dependant on your hardware. Comparing the games to the music / video is not a valid comparison.

I agree but like I said earlier I garuntee you apple would sue anyone who would attempt to get their older builds of these games to work on the new classics. If there was another option for games we wouldn't complain, we'd just choose the competition. Apple doesn't provide that option. I on;y own a classic so this doesn't even apply to me. But I see where people are getting taken advantage of.

tech928
Sep 19, 2007, 04:46 PM
You own the game for the platform you bought on it originally. That would be like demanding that a game company give you a free copy of the PS3 version of a game you already own for the Xbox 360 because you already bought it once.

It doesn't work that way.

I believe this is more like buying a PS1 game and knowing it will work on a PS2 or a gameboy game for a gameboy advance, except these games are probably going to has the exact same quality on both the new and old iPods

Plutonius
Sep 19, 2007, 04:53 PM
I agree but like I said earlier I garuntee you apple would sue anyone who would attempt to get their older builds of these games to work on the new classics. If there was another option for games we wouldn't complain, we'd just choose the competition. Apple doesn't provide that option. I on;y own a classic so this doesn't even apply to me. But I see where people are getting taken advantage of.

Take a look at the itunes store. The games for the previous iPod version are still for sale. The games are still being sold and are not abandonware so why would Apple make the source code available for the public ? Even if Apple gave away the previous version source code for the games, Apple would need to give you the toolkit so you could re-write and compile the code. Apple would never do that since that would allow people to write their own code to go on the iPod. It sounds great until people start writing malicious code / viruses for your iPod.

Nobody is being taken advantage of. Just spend the $5.00 and repurchase the game.

fredsherbet
Sep 19, 2007, 05:12 PM
the wii can play gamecube games
the PS2 can play PS1 games...

Twinkie
Sep 19, 2007, 05:22 PM
the wii can play gamecube games
the PS2 can play PS1 games...But if you want to play NES, SNES, or N64 games on a Wii, you have to rebuy them... even if... OMG... you already own them!

I'm irritated that after buying a 6G iPod, my wife can't use the games on the 5.5G iPod I gave her without losing access to all of the stuff she bought in ITMS.

mosx
Sep 19, 2007, 07:56 PM
But if you want to play NES, SNES, or N64 games on a Wii, you have to rebuy them... even if... OMG... you already own them!

Thats different though.

First, Nintendo fans will pretty much take whatever Nintendo gives them and act as if its a gift from the almighty. It really doesn't matter what it is, they'll love it. Just look at the prices they're charging! And they wonder why people like me, who were Nintendo fans, won't touch the Wii. I originally paid $50 for that gold Zelda: OoT cartridge and they want me to spend an extra $10 to play through it again?

Also, a lot of those games are extremely old now. A good amount of NES games are now 20 years old or more. The last SNES game was released well over a decade ago in the US. The last N64 game was something like 5 years ago.

This is very different from the iPod games. Most of which are far less than a year old an only purchased in recent weeks. Some people here and at other forums spent around $50 recently on games only to be told that their games will not work on their new iPods.

Its one thing to charge someone to play a 22 year old game like Super Mario Bros. again.

Its another thing entirely to tell someone who just bought a game a couple of weeks ago that they'll have to purchase it again if they want to use it on their new hardware.

Another thing to think about is just how important the backwards compatibility of the PS2, Xbox360, and PS3 is to those systems. Would the PS2 have been so successful without the ability to play PS1 games? I'm not so sure. The PS3 is practically relying on multi-platform titles and the ability to play PS2 games to keep it alive right now. The Xbox360 has 2 generations worth of games for people like me who never owned an original Xbox. Just like the PS2 had 2 generations worth of games for the disgruntled Nintendo fans who had only owned a Nintendo64 but didn't want a GameCube. Backwards compatibility is extremely important.

Every single PC game I own still works. I can play my original MYST CD just fine. I can even fire up Mechwarrior 2. My original Half-Life CD, one of the first in stores, will still install and play.

It would be different if these games were out for several years already. It would even be okay to charge to get the games on the iPhone or iPod touch, considering how different the hardware and interface is.

But these games have not even been available for a year yet. And a very large amount of people purchased them mere weeks, some even days, before these new iPods were announced.

That is VERY bad, very Microsoft-like, of Apple to basically tell these people "sorry, you need to buy them again". Apple needs to realize that backwards compatibility is paramount to the gaming industry now. It might not have been back in the 90s, but that has changed. Apple may have been able to get away with dropping backwards compatibility in the past and forcing purchases in the way of upgrades. But they need to realize that many of their current customers are "switchers" and the vast majority of iPod owners are Windows users. Those of us who have switched and those who still use Windows EXPECT to be able to buy something once and have it work for a very long time.

If Apple does not step up, then they will lose their popularity just as fast as they got it.

Shorties
Sep 19, 2007, 08:01 PM
Note - Your movies and music are files in a standard format while your games are programs that are dependant on your hardware. Comparing the games to the music / video is not a valid comparison.

Of course I know that, I am saying, as a consumer it makes no sense that I should rebuy games when I update my iPod.


Check the latest MacRumors story on the iPod teardown. The new iPod contains completely different hardware then the previous iPod version. Thus the comparison between the 360 and PS3 is valid. Apple would have had to do a complete re-write of the games in order to run on the new iPods. I agreed 100% with those that were complaining about the iPhone price drop but I think those that are complaining about paying for the games are wrong. Just pay your $5.00 .



And yes, the hardware is different, but so is the hardware in the 360 compared to the original Xbox, you missed my point, we are dealing with one company, they should be capable of making their own software update to run on new hardware. It was not a complete rewrite I can guarantee you right now, they used most of the same source for this new game platform it probably took 3 guys a week to adapt it for the new iPod. (If that). This isnt Super Mario 64 vs Super Mario Galaxy, this is Sodoku 1.0 vs Soduku 1.1. I would pay for a new version if this actually was a new game with new puzzles and such, but it isnt. And oh its just 5 bucks, thats great if you only bought 1 game, I spent 40 bucks on that store why should I have to repay that if I already bought it?, Thats 4 movies or 4 albums that I could get.

Let me offer another example, when the Intel OSX came out did I have to rebuy things like Unreal Tournament 2004? No of course not there was a little patch that I downloaded that made it compatible.

Twinkie
Sep 19, 2007, 08:36 PM
Thats different though.

First, Nintendo fans will pretty much take whatever Nintendo gives them and act as if its a gift from the almighty. It really doesn't matter what it is, they'll love it. Just look at the prices they're charging! And they wonder why people like me, who were Nintendo fans, won't touch the Wii. I originally paid $50 for that gold Zelda: OoT cartridge and they want me to spend an extra $10 to play through it again?That's different from Apple?

Are you kidding me?

Also, a lot of those games are extremely old now. A good amount of NES games are now 20 years old or more. The last SNES game was released well over a decade ago in the US. The last N64 game was something like 5 years ago.What's your point? That a platform has to exist for X years before it reaches its end of life?

This is very different from the iPod games. Most of which are far less than a year old an only purchased in recent weeks. Some people here and at other forums spent around $50 recently on games only to be told that their games will not work on their new iPods.How is that different from someone who bought a GBA after a GameBoy, or a Dreamcast after a Saturn, or an Xbox 360 after an Xbox?

Heck, I've spent way more than $50 on Xbox games that aren't playable on my Xbox 360.

Its one thing to charge someone to play a 22 year old game like Super Mario Bros. again.

Its another thing entirely to tell someone who just bought a game a couple of weeks ago that they'll have to purchase it again if they want to use it on their new hardware.So using that logic, do you think games in ITMS like Ms. Pac Man and Tetris should be free to everyone in perpetuity?

Another thing to think about is just how important the backwards compatibility of the PS2, Xbox360, and PS3 is to those systems. Would the PS2 have been so successful without the ability to play PS1 games? I'm not so sure. The PS3 is practically relying on multi-platform titles and the ability to play PS2 games to keep it alive right now. The Xbox360 has 2 generations worth of games for people like me who never owned an original Xbox. Just like the PS2 had 2 generations worth of games for the disgruntled Nintendo fans who had only owned a Nintendo64 but didn't want a GameCube. Backwards compatibility is extremely important.Not really.

It's important to sell consoles to people, when you don't have a must-have title on a new platform.

http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/home-entertainment/xbox-360-backward-compatibility-development-ramping-down-after-07-242775.php

Every single PC game I own still works. I can play my original MYST CD just fine. I can even fire up Mechwarrior 2. My original Half-Life CD, one of the first in stores, will still install and play.You're comparing apples to hammers here.

It would be different if these games were out for several years already. It would even be okay to charge to get the games on the iPhone or iPod touch, considering how different the hardware and interface is.The underlying OS on the iPod Classic is completely different. You're basically saying that it's completely acceptable and almost expected for people to have to rebuy games for the iPhone or iPod Touch, because they're newer and different, but the iPod Classic is beholden to support legacy apps because it has the same shape as the old iPod -- nevermind the fact that it shares the same OS as the iPhone and iPod Classic.

But these games have not even been available for a year yet. And a very large amount of people purchased them mere weeks, some even days, before these new iPods were announced.So?

Where did ITMS ever promise that iPod games would work on every hard drive based iPod forever?

What type of person would go stock up on games in the ITMS knowing full well that a new iPod was going to be released? Especially when it was almost certain that the new iPod would run a completely different OS?

That is VERY bad, very Microsoft-like, of Apple to basically tell these people "sorry, you need to buy them again". Apple needs to realize that backwards compatibility is paramount to the gaming industry now. It might not have been back in the 90s, but that has changed. Apple may have been able to get away with dropping backwards compatibility in the past and forcing purchases in the way of upgrades. But they need to realize that many of their current customers are "switchers" and the vast majority of iPod owners are Windows users. Those of us who have switched and those who still use Windows EXPECT to be able to buy something once and have it work for a very long time.Um... Apple dropped backwards compatibility with OS9 when they switched to Intel. And that assumes you thought that OS9 compatibility was anything approaching decent in OS X.

Apple actually has a pretty consistent history of dropping backwards compatibility going back to the Lisa. It's also one of the inherent differences between Apple and Microsoft.

One of the reasons Windows is so... you know... Windows... is because Microsoft designs it to work with everything under the sun. If you ever do a fresh install of pre-Vista Windows, you'll see it trying to load up drivers for ISA SCSI cards that haven't been made in nearly 15 years.

Force your products to take on legacy baggage, and you wind up with Windows.

If Apple does not step up, then they will lose their popularity just as fast as they got it.With the relatively few people who bought games and immediately bought a new iPod for the sake of buying one?

Plutonius
Sep 20, 2007, 12:22 AM
Of course I know that, I am saying, as a consumer it makes no sense that I should rebuy games when I update my iPod.



And yes, the hardware is different, but so is the hardware in the 360 compared to the original Xbox, you missed my point, we are dealing with one company, they should be capable of making their own software update to run on new hardware. It was not a complete rewrite I can guarantee you right now, they used most of the same source for this new game platform it probably took 3 guys a week to adapt it for the new iPod. (If that). This isnt Super Mario 64 vs Super Mario Galaxy, this is Sodoku 1.0 vs Soduku 1.1. I would pay for a new version if this actually was a new game with new puzzles and such, but it isnt. And oh its just 5 bucks, thats great if you only bought 1 game, I spent 40 bucks on that store why should I have to repay that if I already bought it?, Thats 4 movies or 4 albums that I could get.

Let me offer another example, when the Intel OSX came out did I have to rebuy things like Unreal Tournament 2004? No of course not there was a little patch that I downloaded that made it compatible.

You can run UT under Intel OSX because OSX (an operating system) allows you to. The tiny patch is necessary but it is the large OSX that allows the backward compatibility. The console games are running their own large operating system for backward compatibility.

The only options they had on the current gen of the iPod was to re-write the game code and re-compile it for the new hardware making it incompatable with the last generation of iPods. A patch will not give you game compatability between the last and current iPod generations. You will never get game code that will run on both generations of iPods.

Pants Dragon
Sep 20, 2007, 12:46 AM
Ask yourself this: Can I still play it on my old iPod? If the answer is yes, you have nothing to complain about, other than not being given a free handout. Plain and simple. You got exactly what you paid for.

GavinTing
Sep 20, 2007, 01:01 AM
:eek: Guys, relax. The ipod is a music player, not gaming device! Play on your macs!

mosx
Sep 20, 2007, 01:52 AM
It amazes me that people will defend anything Apple does, no matter how bad it is. This situation now, and even the iPhone price drop. You had people telling others that had just purchased their iPhone a little more than 2 weeks before the price drop to "suck it up" and that "$200 isn't much".

And now this. If Microsoft had done this, everybody would be mad and talking about how bad of a company they are and how they always screw the customer over.

But now that Apple has made a couple of anti-consumer moves... well, what Apple has done is perfectly okay. Because its Apple.

What's your point? That a platform has to exist for X years before it reaches its end of life?

My point is that the games that Nintendo is trying to charge for are anywhere between 5 and 22 years old now. That is a bit different than games that were released mere weeks ago.

I'm not saying its right over Nintendo to charge people who already purchased their games. I'm just saying its different. Those games range in age from half a decade to more than 2 decades old. Not a few weeks to one year old.

And you certainly weren't able to purchase those old Nintendo games NEW just a couple of weeks ago and then be told a few days later that you couldn't use them any more on new hardware.

How is that different from someone who bought a GBA after a GameBoy, or a Dreamcast after a Saturn, or an Xbox 360 after an Xbox?

Heck, I've spent way more than $50 on Xbox games that aren't playable on my Xbox 360.

Game Boy games worked on the GBA. The Dreamcast was released several years after the Saturn had effectively died in the US. And for both of those, neither Sega nor Nintendo told their customers that they had to buy new copies of the same game to continue playing. The games simply didn't work. They didn't update the game from 1.0 to 1.1 and say "sorry, $50 again please".

And Microsoft has been making an effort to insure backwards compatibility with old Xbox games, despite the completely different hardware and and software. And they're doing that for free.

So using that logic, do you think games in ITMS like Ms. Pac Man and Tetris should be free to everyone in perpetuity?

Every person who bought iPod games should be eligible for a free upgrades of new versions. Not new games. But new versions. In the case of the current iPod games, they were all updated from version 1.0 to 1.1. That is no different than patching a PC game to run on a new OS, or a bug fix patch.

If the new version of Ms. Pac-Man had new added levels and things like that, then Apple has every right to charge for the completely new game.

But they should NOT charge for UPDATES that allow the games to run on new hardware.

In the case of the better controls on Tetris, that should be free for all purchasers of that game. Why? Because the original controls were awful. That should be free as an apology. Nothing other than a couple of new control schemes were added to the game. That does not qualify as new content, it only qualifies as a patch or update.

Not really.

It's important to sell consoles to people, when you don't have a must-have title on a new platform.

If you say so. One of the reasons I'll be buying an Xbox360, aside from the fact that the PS3 is horribly overpriced and a lot of its flagship titles (like Final Fantasy) have taken a turn for the worst, is the fact that I'll have access to a very large number of Xbox games.

As for the link you posted, well I can see why they would focus less on backwards compatibility. http://www.xbox.com/en-US/games/backwardcompatibilitygameslist.htm Considering just how many games do work now.

You're comparing apples to hammers here.

Nope. Just pointing out that I never had to pay any money for those games to continue working on new editions of Windows and new hardware.

Windows XP is vastly different "under the hood" than Windows 3.1 and DOS, even Windows 95/98. Yet my MYST, Mechwarrior 2, and original Half-Life CDs still all work thanks to a company preserving backwards compatibility.

The underlying OS on the iPod Classic is completely different. You're basically saying that it's completely acceptable and almost expected for people to have to rebuy games for the iPhone or iPod Touch, because they're newer and different, but the iPod Classic is beholden to support legacy apps because it has the same shape as the old iPod -- nevermind the fact that it shares the same OS as the iPhone and iPod Classic.

The iPod touch and iPhone have completely different hardware and user interfaces. They have completely different ways of using them. The games would literally have to be rewritten in every aspect to work on those iPods. Of course, Apple could show they do care about the consumer and offer cheap upgrades for iPod touch/iPhone games to those of us who bought iPod games.

The iPod classic and 3G nano are still the same basic iPods they were before, with upgrades to the hardware and software. Some chips may have changed. But so what? Look at the Xbox360. Microsoft went to great lengths to insure backwards compatibility. Look at the Playstation2. It had a PS1 CPU, but most of the backwards compatibility was the result of software emulation.

The games for the iPod classic, nano, and 5/5.5G iPods are all played exactly the same, do not use any kind of new UI or new way of interacting with the games like they would on the touch or iPhone.

Its a simple software update/patch to get the games to run on the new hardware. And, as such, it should be free to users as it always has been with console and PC games in the past.

So?

Where did ITMS ever promise that iPod games would work on every hard drive based iPod forever?

Apple NEVER said these games would not work on future iPods, nor did Steve Jobs come out and say that games would have to be repurchased.

And it has been a tradition in the gaming industry for how long now? To maintain backwards compatibility.

What type of person would go stock up on games in the ITMS knowing full well that a new iPod was going to be released? Especially when it was almost certain that the new iPod would run a completely different OS?

And where is the proof that the iPod classic and 3G nano run a "completely different OS"? Yeah, the UI has improved. But where is the proof that it is completely different, written entirely new from the ground up or based on OS X? Even so, its still using the same basic hardware, user interface, and user input to play the games.

Apple actually has a pretty consistent history of dropping backwards compatibility going back to the Lisa. It's also one of the inherent differences between Apple and Microsoft.

One of the reasons Windows is so... you know... Windows... is because Microsoft designs it to work with everything under the sun. If you ever do a fresh install of pre-Vista Windows, you'll see it trying to load up drivers for ISA SCSI cards that haven't been made in nearly 15 years.

Force your products to take on legacy baggage, and you wind up with Windows

As much as I like my Mac, I have to be honest and say that is one of the reasons Microsoft still dominates.

People can be assured that whatever they buy will continue to work in one way or another. And if the software doesn't, then the developer will generally update it for free to make sure it continues to work.

Look at Nero as an example. They could have simply told all users they needed to buy a new version of Nero. $90 down the drain. But they offered a free upgrade for everyone so they could use Nero in Vista.

That is just GOOD customer service.

And as I said before, Apple needs to realize where a lot of their current customers are coming from. If they don't treat these customers the way they are used to being treated, or even better, then they are going to lose them as customers.

If I have no guarantee that my software that I purchase for my Mac will continue to work as time goes on, then I might just have to not purchase a Mac again in the future.

With the relatively few people who bought games and immediately bought a new iPod for the sake of buying one?

With their general policy of dropping compatibility. You can bet this will affect more than just a few people. The news of this has already spread across the internet and when the average person hears of it, they will wonder what they might forced to repurchase in the future.

You can run UT under Intel OSX because OSX (an operating system) allows you to. The tiny patch is necessary but it is the large OSX that allows the backward compatibility. The console games are running their own large operating system for backward compatibility.

The only options they had on the current gen of the iPod was to re-write the game code and re-compile it for the new hardware making it incompatable with the last generation of iPods. A patch will not give you game compatability between the last and current iPod generations. You will never get game code that will run on both generations of iPods.

But companies like Epic assuring customers that old games work is just flat out good customer service. Epic could have said "sorry, we're not updating the old game to work". Or they could have been like Apple and charged for the new game.

Or Apple could have stepped up like Microsoft and Sony and made sure that the games worked, despite the new hardware and software.

At the very worst, Apple could have charged a very small fee, say 49 cents, to upgrade. Not forcing people to rebuy what they have already purchased.

Ask yourself this: Can I still play it on my old iPod? If the answer is yes, you have nothing to complain about, other than not being given a free handout. Plain and simple. You got exactly what you paid for.

This coming from someone who could afford a 17" MBP with 4GB of RAM and the more expensive display.

$50 might not mean as much to you. But to other people, being told that they just threw away $50 is a big deal.

Pants Dragon
Sep 20, 2007, 08:25 AM
This coming from someone who could afford a 17" MBP with 4GB of RAM and the more expensive display.

$50 might not mean as much to you. But to other people, being told that they just threw away $50 is a big deal.

Say what you want, I'm not wealthy by a long shot.

Your second statement is incredibly whiny and utterly false. Did you ask yourself the question I told you to ask? You didn't throw away $50 because the games STILL WORK on your old iPod, which is what you bought them for. Nowhere did Apple say they would be compatible with new iPods being released. And with the overall interface/OS upgrade present in the new iPods, you shouldn't honestly expect your games built for an old iPod to work on them.

But they should NOT charge for UPDATES that allow the games to run on new hardware.


This has got to be the worst argument I've ever heard. Getting back in to a console argument, would you make a thread if the PS3 had come out without PS2 and PS1 compatibility? Would you DEMAND new versions of the games because you paid Sony for them, and you want them to play on the newer hardware?

Some games, like Tetris, get released and upgraded for every hardware platform known to man. Do you expect to be able to buy it once and have it work on all of them? Think about what you're asking.

logicalnoise
Sep 20, 2007, 11:14 AM
Say what you want, I'm not wealthy by a long shot.

Your second statement is incredibly whiny and utterly false. Did you ask yourself the question I told you to ask? You didn't throw away $50 because the games STILL WORK on your old iPod, which is what you bought them for. Nowhere did Apple say they would be compatible with new iPods being released. And with the overall interface/OS upgrade present in the new iPods, you shouldn't honestly expect your games built for an old iPod to work on them.



This has got to be the worst argument I've ever heard. Getting back in to a console argument, would you make a thread if the PS3 had come out without PS2 and PS1 compatibility? Would you DEMAND new versions of the games because you paid Sony for them, and you want them to play on the newer hardware?

Some games, like Tetris, get released and upgraded for every hardware platform known to man. Do you expect to be able to buy it once and have it work on all of them? Think about what you're asking.

Now hey everyone in the US has the right to modify their property for their own use. The hitch is there is a law(DMCA) making it illegal to break DRM to do it(the law still has no precedent on which is more binding). So If we had a way of doing what apple did for free we could. Unfortunatly Apple won't make it easy nor would they allow someone to develop a ipod classic or nano 3g version of tetris derived from code purchased for an earlier ipod.

side note: People did buy the oldewr version and are presumably stuck with them. that's the truth of teh matter. I lucked out and waite don buying more games(other than teh 3 the classic comed with). Knowing what I know I will never buy a game from itunes.

fabianjj
Sep 20, 2007, 01:59 PM
I think the games should be free to update, but still: nobody ever said you would be able to run them on the new iPods. It's almost like complaining about your old VHS aren't very compatible with your DVD-player, or the fact that the iPod doesn't support audio casette tapes.

And yes i think there is a tetris version for every device capable of playing games of any kind

A little off-topic: complaining that you have to pay for nintendo's downloadabla games is a little extreme. I mean you can't honestly think they'd add 3 different cassette loaders to enable backwards compatibiliy?

tech928
Sep 20, 2007, 02:05 PM
This has got to be the worst argument I've ever heard. Getting back in to a console argument, would you make a thread if the PS3 had come out without PS2 and PS1 compatibility? Would you DEMAND new versions of the games because you paid Sony for them, and you want them to play on the newer hardware?


yes, i'm not sure if you have ever played a PS2 or PS1 game on a PS3, but sony went to great lengths, and I imagine an amazing amount of programming to get these older games to work on the new system, and is a major selling point for the PS3 as the reverse compatibility may be enough to stray a PS2 owner away from the 360 (granted apple has no competition in the iPod game market). If you compare the PS3 to the PS2 not only is it a different software but it is a complete hardware overhaul (DVD to Blu-Ray) Not only that apple has already made the new games reverse compatible, so if I bought it today it
would work on my 5G and the new iPods for the same price.

That would be like sony releasing a PS3 game that works on the PS2.

Joedy
Sep 20, 2007, 07:16 PM
Ask yourself this: Can I still play it on my old iPod? If the answer is yes, you have nothing to complain about, other than not being given a free handout. Plain and simple. You got exactly what you paid for.

Suppose that you had to re-purchase your downloaded music from iTunes when you upgraded to the new iPods?

Would this be a fair and honorable thing to do to existing customers?



The fair thing to do would be to allow backwards compatibility and offer premium versions of these games that are only compatible with the newer iPods.

-joedy

zap2
Sep 20, 2007, 07:23 PM
I own a Gameboy, I also own a Gameboy Color, My Gameboy Games are perfectly compatible in the gameboy color, and the gameboy advance for that matter. My Xbox games are compatable in my 360 (Well some are :( ) and my PS1 and PS2 games are perfectly compatible in a PS3 (If I bought one).


As you said, not all Xbox games play on Xbox 360, same for PS3 with PS1 and PS2. And try playing your GB/GBC games in a DS? It doesn't work....same thing with Saturn, Mega Drive, Dreamcast, N64, SNES,NES, etc

Shorties
Sep 20, 2007, 08:10 PM
As you said, not all Xbox games play on Xbox 360, same for PS3 with PS1 and PS2. And try playing your GB/GBC games in a DS? It doesn't work....same thing with Saturn, Mega Drive, Dreamcast, N64, SNES,NES, etc

GBC and GB games dont work because it requires additional hardware to get it to work. Same with all of those systems that you mentioned. The iPod games require a software updated, that's it, it's all software, the least apple could do is offer a paid upgrade not make us rebuy the games we already bought for every new iPod we get.

Pants Dragon
Sep 20, 2007, 08:29 PM
Suppose that you had to re-purchase your downloaded music from iTunes when you upgraded to the new iPods?

Would this be a fair and honorable thing to do to existing customers?



The fair thing to do would be to allow backwards compatibility and offer premium versions of these games that are only compatible with the newer iPods.

-joedy

The problem with this argument is that they specify which iPods the games are compatible with. With the songs it's different.
A)It's not sold as an "iPod song." (As in, the song can be played on your computer as well/burned to a CD, etc.)
B)A song is not a software product, it is a data file. Big difference.

theBB
Sep 20, 2007, 09:12 PM
Come on!... Can't you guys say "Apple does not have to provide the new versions of the games for free in a contractual sense of obligation, but it would be nice of Apple to do so to keep customers happy" and leave it at that? Then, it becomes a question of game development costs vs. the value of additional customer loyalty. If there are enough people complaining about it, I can see Apple changing tactics. You don't have to get into a shouting match.

mosx
Sep 21, 2007, 05:24 AM
Say what you want, I'm not wealthy by a long shot.

But buying a 17" MBP at $2800 definitely shows your view of "value" and money in general is different from most people.

Your second statement is incredibly whiny and utterly false.

:rolleyes:

False? Prove it.

Did you ask yourself the question I told you to ask? You didn't throw away $50 because the games STILL WORK on your old iPod, which is what you bought them for.

I, like many other people, bought the iPod games under the assumption that they would continue to work on new iPod models.

NOWHERE did Apple state that they would not work with future iPods. Nowhere.

Nowhere did Apple say they would be compatible with new iPods being released.

Nor did they say they would NOT be compatible with new iPods. Being one of the more expensive items on the iTunes Store, and looking at the history of gaming in general, people were 100% right to make the assumption that the games would continue to work on new iPods.

And with the overall interface/OS upgrade present in the new iPods, you shouldn't honestly expect your games built for an old iPod to work on them.

What overall upgrade to the interface? The differences between the old and "new" UI are minor at best. You get to see album artwork, Coverflow, and a couple of coloring changes. Thats about the same UI upgrade Windows 98 received over Windows 95.

As for the OS changes.. well, again, games I bought back in the Windows 3.1/DOS days still work.

There is absolutely no reason Apple couldn't have included compatibility with the older games. None at all.

This has got to be the worst argument I've ever heard.

If thats so, then back up your own position and prove that it is.

would you make a thread if the PS3 had come out without PS2 and PS1 compatibility? Would you DEMAND new versions of the games because you paid Sony for them, and you want them to play on the newer hardware?

Again, that is a different situation. The PS1 is 12 years old in the US now. The PS2 is approaching 7 years old. If Sony decided not to include backwards compatibility, that would be different because the systems and games are very old now. And the PS2 is STILL IN PRODUCTION and its still selling by the millions. It also costs all of $20 to buy a new laser for the PS2 and it only takes a couple of screws to swap out a dead pickup system for a new one.

The 5G and 5.5G iPods are no longer in production. Replacing the HDD in the unit is not exactly a walk in the park and it is very expensive.

The iPod games were all a year old or even less than that, with a couple of games coming just a few weeks before the new iPods were announced. Someone buying an iPod 4 months ago, when the iPod would have only been 8 months old, and buying a game for it 3 weeks ago, is a lot different than someone making the decision to buy a gaming console that is more than half a decade old, yet still in production with titles still being developed for it.

Another thing to remember here is that everything purchased on the iTunes Store up until this point has worked across all generations of iPods.

Why is it so wrong that someone would assume otherwise with the games? Especially when there was no indication that it would be otherwise?

Some games, like Tetris, get released and upgraded for every hardware platform known to man. Do you expect to be able to buy it once and have it work on all of them? Think about what you're asking.

Again, there was no indication made by Apple in any way, shape, form, hint, whatever that the games would not work on newer iPod models. Some of the games that no longer work are barely a month old now.

The model capable of playing these games was discontinued and no longer in production or easily available. Its very costly to repair when it dies and certainly not easy.

Gaming in general has had backwards compatibility for multiple generations.

$40, $50, $60 are not small amounts of money that can be thrown away easily. Apple needs to respect that.

They also need to respect the fact that people DID buy those games, and then just bought new iPods that cost 2x-4x more for the consumer to buy than it costs Apple to build them.

People did buy the oldewr version and are presumably stuck with them. that's the truth of teh matter.

Thats true. If Apple doesn't offer free upgrades, then the people who bought all of those games for their older iPods will have wasted money and be stuck with nothing unless they're willing to shell out at least a couple hundred dollars to fix the old iPod.

complaining that you have to pay for nintendo's downloadabla games is a little extreme. I mean you can't honestly think they'd add 3 different cassette loaders to enable backwards compatibiliy?

Paying something like $50 for a piece of hardware that could read SNES, NES, GB, GBC, GBA, and N64 cartridges would be a lot better than what they're charging for the games now.

As it stands now, you can find working versions of the old hardware plus all the games you want for less than the cost of the Wii itself.

I imagine an amazing amount of programming to get these older games to work on the new system, and is a major selling point for the PS3 as the reverse compatibility may be enough to stray a PS2 owner away from the 360 (granted apple has no competition in the iPod game market). If you compare the PS3 to the PS2 not only is it a different software but it is a complete hardware overhaul (DVD to Blu-Ray)

Exactly. The 80GB PS3, and 60GB models outside of Japan and the US, offer backwards compatibility through software emulation. Sony had to basically make a PS1 and PS2 emulator for the PS3.

The PS2's compatibility with PS1 games was achieved by a combination of hardware and software emulation.

And as you said, Apple already released versions of the games that are compatible with all three iPods.

Why is it so hard difficult to offer free upgrades? Free upgrades for older games to maintain compatibility with newer hardware and software is something that has been going on in both the console and PC gaming industry for years now.

not all Xbox games play on Xbox 360

But the vast majority of them do. http://www.xbox.com/en-US/games/backwardcompatibilitygameslist.htm

You might not be able to play the Xbox version of Bad Boys 2 on your Xbox360, but does that really matter? Again, its a different situation. YEARS old now for hardware that is also years old. The game isn't a year old, or much less, relying on hardware that was discontinued and taken out of production when it was only approaching 1 year old.

The problem with this argument is that they specify which iPods the games are compatible with. With the songs it's different.
A)It's not sold as an "iPod song." (As in, the song can be played on your computer as well/burned to a CD, etc.)
B)A song is not a software product, it is a data file. Big difference.

Not different at all. To get the games running on the new iPods requires a software update. Nothing more.

Everything purchased on the iTunes store, up until this point, has worked across all newer generations of iPod. Why should the games be any different? Especially when backwards compatibility has been key in the gaming industry for many many many years now.

Shorties
Sep 21, 2007, 06:28 AM
I honestly can't believe some of you are defending Apple on this one, let me guess all of you who are defending apple haven't bought a single game on the iTunes store. Come on you guys should realize this is ridiculous no matter the company, I love Apple as much as the next person but this is just not OK.

Pants Dragon
Sep 21, 2007, 07:39 AM
But buying a 17" MBP at $2800 definitely shows your view of "value" and money in general is different from most people.

I didn't buy it myself. I got it as a graduation present, and as a tool for university. Cue argument about me being spoiled. :rolleyes:

False? Prove it.

Pretty sure I did. The games still work with the iPods specified in the compatibility section listed at time of purchase.

I, like many other people, bought the iPod games under the assumption that they would continue to work on new iPod models.

NOWHERE did Apple state that they would not work with future iPods. Nowhere.

You know what they say about assumptions....

Nor did they say they would NOT be compatible with new iPods. Being one of the more expensive items on the iTunes Store, and looking at the history of gaming in general, people were 100% right to make the assumption that the games would continue to work on new iPods.

"History of gaming in general?" What does that even mean?

What overall upgrade to the interface? The differences between the old and "new" UI are minor at best. You get to see album artwork, Coverflow, and a couple of coloring changes. Thats about the same UI upgrade Windows 98 received over Windows 95.

As for the OS changes.. well, again, games I bought back in the Windows 3.1/DOS days still work.

Some may. Most won't. Out of the box that is. I don't know if you've actualy tried running them, but believe me, I'm a big fan of classic games, they bring back old memories. And getting a DOS game or even an old Windows to boot and run smoothly in XP isn't as simple as you'd think. I don't even want to know how bad Vista is for this sort of thing.

There is absolutely no reason Apple couldn't have included compatibility with the older games. None at all.

You can't possibly have enough knowledge on the topic to make this decision for them.

If thats so, then back up your own position and prove that it is.

Back up what? A company isn't obligated, morally or otherwise to give you something for free.


Again, that is a different situation. The PS1 is 12 years old in the US now. The PS2 is approaching 7 years old. If Sony decided not to include backwards compatibility, that would be different because the systems and games are very old now. And the PS2 is STILL IN PRODUCTION and its still selling by the millions. It also costs all of $20 to buy a new laser for the PS2 and it only takes a couple of screws to swap out a dead pickup system for a new one.

The 5G and 5.5G iPods are no longer in production. Replacing the HDD in the unit is not exactly a walk in the park and it is very expensive.

True, but they do have a warranty. I realize it won't last forever, but when was the last time you heard somebody complaining to Nintendo because their Super NES broke and they can't play any games they paid for on it?

The iPod games were all a year old or even less than that, with a couple of games coming just a few weeks before the new iPods were announced. Someone buying an iPod 4 months ago, when the iPod would have only been 8 months old, and buying a game for it 3 weeks ago, is a lot different than someone making the decision to buy a gaming console that is more than half a decade old, yet still in production with titles still being developed for it.

You do have a point here. I think Apple should give credit if people purchased their games within the last short while.

Another thing to remember here is that everything purchased on the iTunes Store up until this point has worked across all generations of iPods.

Why is it so wrong that someone would assume otherwise with the games? Especially when there was no indication that it would be otherwise?

Because like I said before, games are software, which can have compatibility issues. A song or a video is just a data file, which can be played by anything.

Again, there was no indication made by Apple in any way, shape, form, hint, whatever that the games would not work on newer iPod models. Some of the games that no longer work are barely a month old now.

Once again, you have a point. Once again, I think credit should be given for the month-old game.

Gaming in general has had backwards compatibility for multiple generations.

And look how much it ends up costing the companies involved.

$40, $50, $60 are not small amounts of money that can be thrown away easily. Apple needs to respect that.

Isn't one game like $7.00? I know people bought multiple games, but don't try to skew this by making them seem more expensive than they are.

They also need to respect the fact that people DID buy those games, and then just bought new iPods that cost 2x-4x more for the consumer to buy than it costs Apple to build them.

I was going to ay you have a point but you had to bring up the absolutely stupid "OMG iPODS ONLY COST APPLE $100!!!!"

Material cost is ONE aspect of a product's price. It's far from the total.

Thats true. If Apple doesn't offer free upgrades, then the people who bought all of those games for their older iPods will have wasted money and be stuck with nothing unless they're willing to shell out at least a couple hundred dollars to fix the old iPod.

Did everybody's iPod suddenly break when they bought a new one?:confused:

I honestly can't believe some of you are defending Apple on this one, let me guess all of you who are defending apple haven't bought a single game on the iTunes store. Come on you guys should realize this is ridiculous no matter the company, I love Apple as much as the next person but this is just not OK.

Actually I've bought 5 games for my iPod, though I don't plan on upgrading to the classic, so it's not really a problem to me.

logicalnoise
Sep 21, 2007, 07:59 AM
The problem with this argument is that they specify which iPods the games are compatible with. With the songs it's different.
A)It's not sold as an "iPod song." (As in, the song can be played on your computer as well/burned to a CD, etc.)
B)A song is not a software product, it is a data file. Big difference.

the problem is that with DRM these "songs" qualify as a software product.

Plutonius
Sep 21, 2007, 12:15 PM
I honestly can't believe some of you are defending Apple on this one, let me guess all of you who are defending apple haven't bought a single game on the iTunes store. Come on you guys should realize this is ridiculous no matter the company, I love Apple as much as the next person but this is just not OK.

Maybe because we think you are wrong.

mosx
Sep 22, 2007, 04:56 PM
I didn't buy it myself. I got it as a graduation present, and as a tool for university. Cue argument about me being spoiled.

Definitely. I'm not being a jerk or flaming you, but you're what? 18? 19? And you just had a computer that costs nearly $3000 handed to you for free?

Yeah, you really don't understand the concept of money yet, nor the value of it and what it takes to even earn it in a way that is required for you to have a place to live, eat, etc.

Your entire argument is pretty much null and void at this point. Come back and talk when you've learned the value of a dollar and you've purchased that $3,000 computer for yourself.

Pretty sure I did. The games still work with the iPods specified in the compatibility section listed at time of purchase.

That doesn't prove anything. The games were made immediately obsolete and the hardware required to run them taken out of production and out of retail circles.

You know what they say about assumptions...

Again, nowhere did Apple ever say the games would NOT be compatible with future iPods, and they never once even hinted at the release of the new iPods that you would have to repurchase.

People had every right to assume that the games they purchased would be compatible.

Again, especially considering that every item on the iTunes store has been compatible with future generation iPods up until this point.

"History of gaming in general?" What does that even mean?

That console gaming and portable gaming, for years, has been backwards compatible with older games at no extra charge. And PC gaming, on the Windows side anyway, has gone through great lengths to ensure compatibility with upgraded operating systems and hardware.

Some may. Most won't. Out of the box that is. I don't know if you've actualy tried running them, but believe me, I'm a big fan of classic games, they bring back old memories. And getting a DOS game or even an old Windows to boot and run smoothly in XP isn't as simple as you'd think. I don't even want to know how bad Vista is for this sort of thing.

All of my old DOS games run fine in XP and Vista. I can fire up the original Doom, not "Doom 95" without a problem. Mechwarrior 2? It installs the Windows version. MYST runs fine. Games that are almost a decade old will install and run fine, like Half-Life and Unreal. They run better with patches, but the fact remains that they still run, Microsoft made sure they would run, and the developers have kept the games up to date over the years to make sure they would run.

You can't possibly have enough knowledge on the topic to make this decision for them.

Yet Sony and Microsoft have made updates available, for free, to ensure compatibility with older games on completely different hardware and software. Yeah, I don't see why Apple couldn't do the same thing for a piece of hardware they are generally making more than $100 worth of profit off of and games that were just released.

Back up what? A company isn't obligated, morally or otherwise to give you something for free.

Aren't you the one who just received a free computer costing nearly $3,000?

Anyway, this isn't about me, or other iPod game buyers getting anything "free". This is about us getting what we PAID for.

True, but they do have a warranty. I realize it won't last forever, but when was the last time you heard somebody complaining to Nintendo because their Super NES broke and they can't play any games they paid for on it?

The SNES was released in the US what? 16 years ago? Thats different than games released a month ago for hardware that was less than a year old that can no longer be played unless you pay, again, for something you already purchased.

Because like I said before, games are software, which can have compatibility issues. A song or a video is just a data file, which can be played by anything.

So while Apple can upgrade their hardware and program software to maintain compatibility with music and movie files, they can't do the same for games? Why not? Thats ridiculous.

And look how much it ends up costing the companies involved.

And look how many iPods Apple sells in comparison to game consoles every quarter. Apple generally sells more iPods at Christmas time than all of the game consoles combined. Apple generally makes what? $75 and more depending on the iPod model (not counting the shuffle). They'll sell as many as 25 million this holiday season.

You really think it'd be a bad thing for them to have spent the little bit of money to ensure compatibility, keep customers happy, and as a result, have them buy MORE Apple products?

Generally, when you go to great lengths to make the customer happy, the customers will buy more of your products. Make them unhappy and that customer is likely to not buy any more of your products and persuade others not to as well.

Isn't one game like $7.00? I know people bought multiple games, but don't try to skew this by making them seem more expensive than they are.

The whole point here is that people bought multiple games and are getting shafted by Apple. It's not just one game. It's that ALL games that you have purchased.. you need to buy again. Right now thats $15 for people like me. But as time goes on and all the games myself and others have bought, that will add up to even more money lost.

I was going to ay you have a point but you had to bring up the absolutely stupid "OMG iPODS ONLY COST APPLE $100!!!!"

Material cost is ONE aspect of a product's price. It's far from the total.

Considering that Apple is using cheap Chinese slave labor to build the iPods, I doubt the "total cost" is much higher than the material cost.

Did everybody's iPod suddenly break when they bought a new one?

Nope. But many of those iPods, like the original 5G, are out of warranty now. The 5.5Gs are beginning to come to the point where they will be out of warranty. The hardware required to play these games is no longer in production.

Maybe because we think you are wrong.

Who is "we"? It definitely seems that there are far more people who believe this is a bad move on Apple's part than anything else. Even one of the guys in control of ilounge, one of the biggest Apple fanboy sites out there, has come out against Apple on this and a few other recent moves.

http://www.ilounge.com/index.php/articles/comments/customers-ask-is-apple-going-rotten/

This isn't some little fanboy with a blog. This is the editor-in-chief of one of the largest Apple fansites out there, and one of the bigger sites on the web in general.

When someone like this comes out and says Apple has made some bad moves, then you know something is wrong.

Pants Dragon
Sep 22, 2007, 05:19 PM
Definitely. I'm not being a jerk or flaming you, but you're what? 18? 19? And you just had a computer that costs nearly $3000 handed to you for free?

Handed to me because my parents were happy with my high school performance and knew it would help me get through university. We're not a wealthy family by any means, both my parents are teachers.

Yeah, you really don't understand the concept of money yet, nor the value of it and what it takes to even earn it in a way that is required for you to have a place to live, eat, etc.

Your entire argument is pretty much null and void at this point. Come back and talk when you've learned the value of a dollar and you've purchased that $3,000 computer for yourself.

Wow, you really are a presumptive *******. Believe it or not, I know how it feels to work to earn money for myself. Getting a graduation present doesn't mean my parents pay for everything. I own a PS3, Wii, 360, and DS, all of which I paid for using money I earned at a job. (And not a good job either, I worked for the corporate overlord that is Wal-Mart) Not to mention the other things which I pay for with my own money, including my cell phone contract and everything else I have. No, I haven't had to earn my living paying for rent or food, but last time I check a $7.00 game doesn't buy much food or pay much rent, so that really has nothing to do with anything.

Aren't you the one who just received a free computer costing nearly $3,000?

Anyway, this isn't about me, or other iPod game buyers getting anything "free". This is about us getting what we PAID for.

You did get what you paid for you whiny little baby! For the love of God, you bought games for your Ipod 5G and that's what you got!

Considering that Apple is using cheap Chinese slave labor to build the iPods, I doubt the "total cost" is much higher than the material cost.

For one thing, labour in China may be cheap, but the fact that it costs anything precludes it from being slavery. They don't make as little as you think.

Also, assembly is once again only one aspect. What about shipping it thousands of miles to where it is to be sold? What about the actual DESIGN of the product, which takes a long time and a lot of people? Yeah, Apple makes profit from it's products, but that's WHAT A BUSINESS DOES.


I think I'm done with this argument. All you're doing is rehashing your own flawed arguments and insulting me personally without having any knowledge of me other than one tiny aspect of my life. Have fun whining to anybody who will listen how you were robbed, and how your life is so hard because you feel you wasted a few dollars. Hopefully you'll eventually grow up and shut up.

Plutonius
Sep 22, 2007, 05:45 PM
So while Apple can upgrade their hardware and program software to maintain compatibility with music and movie files, they can't do the same for games? Why not? Thats ridiculous.


You might want to read the many responses above. Music and movies are files with a standardized format so they can be played on multiple platforms. The iPod games are applications designed to work with a specific hardware and the hardware has changed from the last gen to the current gen. The computers and gaming systems you referred to have large operating systems to allow backward compatibility (emulation). The iPod does not so they were forced to write / compile different versions for the different revs. You can complain all you want but games written for the new iPod will never be able to run on the previous iPod and games written for the previous iPod will never run on the new iPod.

c-Row
Sep 24, 2007, 05:32 AM
Every single PC game I own still works. I can play my original MYST CD just fine. I can even fire up Mechwarrior 2. My original Half-Life CD, one of the first in stores, will still install and play.

Interesting... there are plenty of games I can't play any more these days, because the hardware and OS has changed too much. Maybe I played the wrong games...

I can even go back further in time - there were games for the Amiga 500 which couldn't be run on the Amiga 1200. Sometimes the developers released a special version for these systems (A1200/A4000), and guess what? No matter if you already owned the A500 versions, if you wanted to play them, you had to BUY THEM AGAIN! :eek:

logicalnoise
Sep 24, 2007, 08:58 AM
Interesting... there are plenty of games I can't play any more these days, because the hardware and OS has changed too much. Maybe I played the wrong games...

I can even go back further in time - there were games for the Amiga 500 which couldn't be run on the Amiga 1200. Sometimes the developers released a special version for these systems (A1200/A4000), and guess what? No matter if you already owned the A500 versions, if you wanted to play them, you had to BUY THEM AGAIN! :eek:

Then you just didn't research how to play them on the new systems. Most old DOS games need a proper DOS emulator to work correctly(since modern dos is just a line command shell for windows) and sometimes you need a special audio driver to emulate the old soundblaster cards. but pretty much any OPC game is playable on modern PCs as well as macs.

logicalnoise
Sep 24, 2007, 09:03 AM
For one thing, labour in China may be cheap, but the fact that it costs anything precludes it from being slavery. They don't make as little as you think.


wow buddy, get some perspective. Slave labor is any labor where the worker is grossly undercompensated and forced to work in dangerous/unconciable conditions. This can include Extremely low wages, long hours, little breaks, few safety concerns, and no possibel path for promotion. China does have slave labor.

c-Row
Sep 24, 2007, 09:09 AM
Then you just didn't research how to play them on the new systems. Most old DOS games need a proper DOS emulator to work correctly(since modern dos is just a line command shell for windows) and sometimes you need a special audio driver to emulate the old soundblaster cards. but pretty much any OPC game is playable on modern PCs as well as macs.

Ok, show me - get Frontier: First Encounters running on a PC or Mac either with DOSBox or natively.

aaquib
Sep 24, 2007, 09:15 AM
If you guys are upset that Apple is shafting you do this:

1.Buy iPod games, because you can ONLY get them from iTunes
2.Download all your music for free, so Apple doesnt gain money

Apple screws you, you screw them even harder, because 1 game costs $5, but let's be honest. We listen to a lot more than 1 song :D

An eye for an eye ;)

logicalnoise
Sep 24, 2007, 10:54 AM
If you guys are upset that Apple is shafting you do this:

1.Buy iPod games, because you can ONLY get them from iTunes
2.Download all your music for free, so Apple doesnt gain money

Apple screws you, you screw them even harder, because 1 game costs $5, but let's be honest. We listen to a lot more than 1 song :D

An eye for an eye ;)

Apple makes 33 cents per song and that only covers operating costs of itunes. it won't really hurt them unless like 30% of thei usual buyers do it.

logicalnoise
Sep 24, 2007, 10:58 AM
Ok, show me - get Frontier: First Encounters running on a PC or Mac either with DOSBox or natively.

from wikipedia:
Being a DOS game, First Encounters has difficulty running with Windows XP or Windows 2000 machines, although the official site does offer solutions to get the game running[2]. A recreated game engine called JJFFE allows playing the game on DOS, Linux and Windows, and offers numerous enhancements and even more bug fixes.


also:

Due to a conflict between Braben and the game’s publishers Gametek, the game was shipped early, and as a result was riddled with bugs, such as an auto pilot that crashed. Although it sold well many reviewers were quite contemptuous of the game, seeing it as only half-finished. A patch was eventually released that addressed the vast majority of the bugs, rendering the game at last fully playable and into a “finished”, and some would argue only-then-releaseable, form.

which explains why it would have trouble running with dos box in the first place.

Dagless
Sep 24, 2007, 11:26 AM
Bad move Apple.

c-Row
Sep 25, 2007, 01:49 AM
which explains why it would have trouble running with dos box in the first place.

Exactly - it won't run in its original version and someone had to write some sort of patch to get it running on modern day hardware. Nevertheless, thanks for that info - I will check it out. :)

So, what about those games for the Amiga 500 you had to purchase again for the Amiga 1200? Same company for both machines, not too different hardware, but still not compatible to each other regarding some of the games. ;)

zap2
Sep 25, 2007, 05:15 AM
GBC and GB games dont work because it requires additional hardware to get it to work. Same with all of those systems that you mentioned. The iPod games require a software updated, that's it, it's all software, the least apple could do is offer a paid upgrade not make us rebuy the games we already bought for every new iPod we get.

Do you think software is free?

And Xbox games on Xbox 360 are software based, as are PS3s playing PS1/PS2 games...and all the other consoles could have emulated their past brothers...but they didn't.

This is all very sad, I have 5 iPod games, which I can no long use...boo hoo.

logicalnoise
Sep 25, 2007, 07:59 AM
Exactly - it won't run in its original version and someone had to write some sort of patch to get it running on modern day hardware. Nevertheless, thanks for that info - I will check it out. :)

So, what about those games for the Amiga 500 you had to purchase again for the Amiga 1200? Same company for both machines, not too different hardware, but still not compatible to each other regarding some of the games. ;)

Thats what I've been saying. My point is that apple won't give people a deal and they will legigate any attept to emulate their code into destruction. Yes people may have bought a version tetris specifically for ipod <5gen. However no matter what apple states in their TOS we purchased teh code for our personal use and have the right to use it how we please as longa s it doesn't infringe on apple's copyright. SInce they deny one right they should at least support the need for proper comensation between versions of the software.
The hitch with teh amiga games is now you run one program to emulate both amiga platforms.

joeconvert
Sep 25, 2007, 09:35 AM
You own the game for the platform you bought on it originally. That would be like demanding that a game company give you a free copy of the PS3 version of a game you already own for the Xbox 360 because you already bought it once.

It doesn't work that way.

Disagree, this is more like buying a games for a PS2, then pourchasing a PS3 and being unable to play it.

c-Row
Sep 25, 2007, 09:54 AM
The hitch with teh amiga games is now you run one program to emulate both amiga platforms.

Yes, today - but it was a different world 15 years ago. I miss it.

mosx
Oct 1, 2007, 07:00 PM
I'm still fighting with Apple over this issue. It's been how long now? And they keep saying that I'm asking for a refund. When I'm not.

I guess I'm just going to have to go to the BBB with this.