Dolphin and Emulation
- Inicie sesión ou rexístrese para enviar comentarios
I have two questions please. The first is why the Dolphin emulator (for GameCube and Wii) is not present. I am new to this emulator, but it is licensed as Free Software as far as I can tell.
My second question, is emulation of video games bought in a store against the ideas of Free Software? I think Stallman once was asked how video should be handled and said something along the lines that the engine should, at least, be Free Software. Such as how Doom separates the engine from the content (IWAD.) As such, are these games considered proprietary and as such we should not be trying to emulate them anyway? Or, is it okay to emulate them so long as we use a Free Software emulator?
When we look at ROM file for instance, many variations to games have been made that can only be played through an emulator. I think, if I remember correctly, these variations are under the GPL. Such as ones I've seen made of super mario 3. Sense a ROM is able to be edited, does it now become considered Free Software? And, does the same concept apply to an ISO disc of a Gamecube or Wii game?
On one hand, if we sprint past the DRM and emulate the game on a Free Software emulator, is that not the same as getting past DRM on a mp3 and listening to it on a Free Software player? Or getting past the DRM on a DVD and playing it in a Free Software player? If we can play an ISO of a Gamecube or Wii game on Dolphin, and Dolphin is GNU GPL, does that make it okay? We can play ROMS, than can be modified, of super mario 3 in a Free Software NES emulator.
I guess my question is at what point is it still a valid use of Free Software and at what point is it self delusion? I am not sure but I do not think it is as easy to modify a game who's ISO you copied from a disc as it is to modify a NES ROM. As such, it is a game without source code. How is that any different than running Starcraft on GNU/Linux and now saying you have a Free Software game because you have emulated Windows functionality? (Not sure if WINE is Free Software, but even if it was, the philosophical argument is still here.)
What's right?
I am sure others can answer much better than I can, but here are my thoughts based on my understanding of what I've read on the FSF website...
Whether or not WINE is Free Software or not, it creates an environment that allows installation and use of proprietary software which goes against the idea of free (libre) software. I would consider using an emulator for this purpose to be a non-free software position because even though the emulator may be free, it still uses a proprietary layer to access the content. As I said, this is only my opinion and I could be wrong.
It can be hard sometimes when programs or content we really want aren't completely usable due to software limitations. For me one sticking point is flash. I have tried both SWFDEC and GNASH, and depending on the website, each one will have different levels of functionality. It would be so easy to just get the flash version from Adobe, but if you start adding bits and pieces of non-free software it defeats the purpose of a distro such as Trisquel. This is one reason we really need to encourage use of open standards rather than proprietary ones.
I would like to hear comments from those wiser and with more experience than me.
I am a translator!
WINE is free software. It is under the GPL. But WINE is a borderline case. The project and website (not the software itself) actively recommends the proprietary Crossover suite. And realistically, most people do use it to emulate proprietary software in particular. StarCraft and most PC games are proprietary. It's not nearly as necessary for a game to be free software as, for example, a movie player or an office suite, because these are wholly functional works whereas a game is nearer to a unique work of culture or art. What game companies have to learn is that they won't lose profits by releasing the engines of their games as Free Software; in fact, by doing so they extend the shelf life of the product through modding, and give the gaming community valuable assets to study and build on.
GNASH in its most recent iterations is finally getting to the point of being a reliable decoder of SWF up to version 8 and 9. We need to put pressure on video sharing websites to use HTML5 and Theora instead of a closed standard. Ads are simple enough that they generally don't glitch. Games are another story; they are so complex and use so many different parts of the SWF specification that even SWF 7 games commonly fail to load into the title screen.
I love video games. Long before I learned of Free Software I had played and enjoyed many Nintendo games that I would like to find some way to continue to enjoy. Nintendo, as a company, is interesting to read about.
Nintendo is often rather restrictive when it comes to their games. They sued over the game genie as it modified their games.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_Galoob_Toys,_Inc._v._Nintendo_of_America,_Inc.) They also hold a strong stance against ROMS and emulation as they want to continue to sell their products in the Virtual Console.
Nintendo is often vilified by many who would seek to emulate and modify games but there must be research done and an understanding cultivated as to why Nintendo operates as it does.
Nintendo rose to success after the video game crash of 1983 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_video_game_crash_of_1983) The crash is often attributed to Atari's loose control over who could produce for their system. Vast amounts of games were created and many argue that this had a two-fold negative influence on the market. Many criticized the games, calling them low quality, and claimed that the collapse was caused by over-saturation of the market.
Nintendo implemented specific restrictions as to who could manufacture games for their console. They then limited the number of games a year that each company could release, in hopes of preventing over-saturation and encouraging the companies to refine quality on the games they release. These tactics are often credited as to be what saved the video game market from death.
Respectfully, it is not hard to understand why Nintendo is then often against modified works and the ideas of Free Software. It is fundamentally against the very tactics that both saved the video game industry and made Nintendo successful.
However, as noted, ID software has proven that releasing source code to the game engine does not hurt sales and actually extends the life of the product.
The question that would be posed to Nintendo is whether or not they should continue to do things the way they always have (that made them successful and saved the industry) or if they should do it ID software's way (which does no economic harm and actually helps extend product life.)
I think Nintendo wants to maintain control of their properties and probably does not want to risk another market crash. But I do think it would be an interesting discussion to have with them.
I am a translator!
I played a Sega Genesis for years, then a Sony Playstation. :)
The idea of a videogame market crash in this day in age is laughable. It was only a threat in the old days when the industry was basically Atari and a couple of pretenders. Sharing is good for the industry; the bigwigs are always going to approach it from a profit standpoint, but the more important reason to release source code for video games as free software is to make the videogaming community a better place for sharing and learning. These are the same principals of decentralization and access to knowledge that made Wikipedia possible.
True for Wikipedia. However, people should always be careful of a crash. Nintendo is also in the unique place as the only surviving company that manufactures video games as their primary product. (In regards to console.) Which is perhaps why they are so specific in their restrictions when facing cooperations such as Microsoft and Sony.
I am thinking of e-mailing Nintendo. What is the best way to generate an open discussion with a company regarding Free Software principles?
I am a translator!
The fact of the matter is that software corporations have always erred on the side of jealously guarding their "intellectual property" because they would rather avoid "risking" the Free Software route. Let's forget about releasing game engines as Free Software for a moment; most large game companies are very selective and secretive about announcements for their developing games. Nintendo is especially this way, because their business model at this point is very dependent upon the brand they have established.
>"However, people should always be careful of a crash."
One is not going to happen. The conditions for the crash in the early eighties were A.) One company with most of the market share, releasing consistently low-quality products, B.) A relatively tiny part of the population that even played video games, and C.) An undermarketed industry still in its infancy, which lacked anything like E3, videogame magazines, websites, schools such as Digipen etc.
It's important to always be cautious. One only has to look at the current state of the US government and economy to understand what can happen when people assume everything is going to be okay and do not keep active in politics. Are you suggesting there could never be another crash?
I am a translator!
>"Are you suggesting there could never be another crash?"
I don't think there's any likelihood of another crash given the current sophistication of the video game industry. There could be some kind of industry decline or recession (perhaps similar to the car industry's?), but not a full-fledged crash.
I guess another way to approach the question is what benefits does Nintendo as a company gain from releasing under Free Software and are there any potential risks? As a company is likely to be motivated by profit. (Not saying I agree or not. But I do not think many companies will switch for purely ethical reasons.)
I am a translator!
The problem is not that that Free Software can't be profitable, but that the direction the market takes when development of the product is decentralized is unpredictable. Also, the benefits to the industry as a whole (and in turn, any particular large game company that advocates Free Software) would not be immediately visible. Free Software is a radical proposition in a world full of people that hate to share, so it's difficult to convince large companies to take the initial necessary steps to foster an industry for it. Risk is the bane of sustained profit. It was much easier to get this movement off the ground for computers because it was mostly just unpaid volunteers that liked to write unique, useful software and share it, and the corporations like IBM, Sun, and Novell only began to chime in when the foundation was well in place. The patented nature of game consoles means that change has to come from the top down, and that's a much more difficult thing to achieve.
- Inicie sesión ou rexístrese para enviar comentarios