[QUOTE="calvinsora"]

[QUOTE="ShadowDeathX"] The law is not the same in every part of the world. =pShadowDeathX

The copyright protection of products is international, it comes with the product in question. Infringing upon it is illegal wherever you do it.

International doesn't mean everywhere. International law can only be regulated if a country properly enforces it.

Anyways in regards to that, its legal to emulate such video games, in the United States, as long as you own a license to the game console's original BIOS code. (Buying said console, awards said license.) Lewis Galoob Toys, Inc. v. Nintendo of America, Inc.

In addition, when IP owners ask for their information not be duplicated, reverse engineered, etc. you can just use a original disc which in you have purchased. This gives a license to said without changing its digital form factor.

If you look only at the act of accessing emulated material, I can see what you mean. However, the distribution of the emulated games *is* illegal. I just don't think it's kocher to get stuff that was acquired through illegal means, even if the action itself is fully legal. Hence why I don't emulate, even though I easily could.

[QUOTE="calvinsora"]

[QUOTE="ShadowDeathX"] The law is not the same in every part of the world. =pjedikevin2

The copyright protection of products is international, it comes with the product in question. Infringing upon it is illegal wherever you do it.

I think he means emulation being legal and illegal which i think certain countries state is legal or illegal depending is person has said game, not using X files from the hardware etc. I really do not know much on that end though.

That's possible. The act of emulation itself isn't illegal in all countries, true enough. I don't think it is in my country, for example. However, the method through which those emulated games are provided are illegal through international market law. All in all, I'd say it's not a leveraged argument I support.

[QUOTE="calvinsora"]

[QUOTE="AkimboBFGNinja"]

which you can emulate on a PC.

ShadowDeathX

Unless you want to commit an illegal act, he's unavailable on PC.

The copyright protection of products is international, it comes with the product in question. Infringing upon it is illegal wherever you do it.

As for the article, I'm not even going to give it a gander because it's trying to say one type of gaming is better than the other. I think it's stupid and makes gamers look bad. We play games for fun, no need to take sides. I don't.

[QUOTE="mmmwksil"]

One reason to choose a console over a PC:

Super Mario Bros.

That was easy, wasn't it?

AkimboBFGNinja

which you can emulate on a PC.

Unless you want to commit an illegal act, he's unavailable on PC.

[QUOTE="calvinsora"]

[QUOTE="Nintendo_Ownes7"]Actually if the game was published/owned by a 1st party but is developed by a 3rd party then it is still a 1st party title only the developer has no ties to the 1st Party.

Treasure developed IPs for SEGA when they were first party. Treasure is a 3rd Party but every single title Treasure developed for SEGA is owned by SEGA.

They also created the Sin & Punishment series which Nintendo owns that is a 1st Party IP but Treasure is still 3rd Party.

Nintendo_Ownes7

That is not the definition. 1st party only ties into the connection between developer and publisher legally and fiscally, the term "first-party game" is only used by people on the web as an easy way to separate games by first and third party. It does not extend to the ownership of the game, since the definition is as follows:

Of a video game, developed and published by the manufacturer of the video game's respective platform or its internal developers, as opposed to third-party.

Ergo, why owning a franchise does not make it 1st party. It has to be developed and published by their owned companies, i.e. first-party developers.

On fansites and other websites they would call that 2nd party but since there is no such thing as 2nd party in the industry the 1st party Publisher just calls everything they publish 1st party if they own the IP. If they don't own the IP but still publish it the game is still 3rd party.

They really call Sin and Punishment 1st party? That's weird. It really does just go by the definition, i.e. by who developed it and published it in tandem. As an interesting aside, here are the companies that are often called "second-party", which is, as you say, a misnomer:

Asia

• Level-5–White Knight Chronicles,Dark Cloud
• Q-Games–PixelJunkseries
• Clap Hanz–Everybody's Golfseries

North America

• Insomniac Games–Spyroseries,Resistanceseries,Ratchet & Clankseries
• ThatGameCompany–Flow,Flower,Journey
• Ready at Dawn Studios–God of War: Chains of Olympus,Daxter
• High Impact Games–Ratchet & Clank: Size Matters,Secret Agent Clank,Jak and Daxter: The Lost Frontier
• Sanzaru Games-Secret Agent Clank,The Sly Collection,Sly Cooper: Thieves in Time
• Slant Six Games–SOCOM: U.S. Navy SEALs Confrontation,SOCOM: U.S. Navy SEALs Fireteam Bravo 3
• Eat Sleep Play–Twisted Metal,Calling All Cars!
• LightBox Interactive–Starhawk
• United Front Games–ModNation Racers
• Idol Minds–Pain,Ruin
• Bluepoint Games-God of War Collection,The Ico & Shadow of the Colossus Collection
• Nihilistic Software-PlayStation Move Heroes,Resistance PS Vita
• Fun Bits-Fat PrincessDLC,Escape Plan

Europe

• Housemarque-Super Stardust HD,Dead Nation
• Quantic Dream–Heavy Rain
• Novarama–Invizimals,Reality Fighters
• Tarsier Studios–Rag Doll Kung Fu: Fists of Plastic,LittleBigPlanet PS Vita
• Double Eleven Limited–LittleBigPlanet PS Vita
• Ninja Theory–Heavenly Sword
• EPOS Game Studios–Crash Commando

They're actually third-party but Sony has more involvement in its publication. But any game outside of the two lists I've posted are strictly considered third-party, so I'm surprised if any company would say otherwise. But to be fair, there's not been much discussion overall regarding what is and isn't first-party.

[QUOTE="tonitorsi"][QUOTE="Mario1331"]

i gota admit......this plays is flooded with sony bias it gets rather annoying. its seriously a whole army

Mario1331

this has nothing to do with the poll if your going to say theres not a lot of cows here idk what forum your own. this place never had an even amount of fanboys and it was always almost overruned by the sony ones which is why ALOT of old frequent users left.

im not going to sit here and name people its blatantly obvious and idc about a poll it doesnt effect me or my day in any way since i play all the first party titles for each system

To be fair, it hasn't always been Sony fanboys. They only started to grow around 2008, before that there were lemmings. Hermits are about consistent in number.

As long as its an option, not a necessity, I'm indifferent. I'll probably get it at some point but it will probably be much like the Wii Motion Plus.

You act as if there are only two systems. Silly.

[QUOTE="calvinsora"]

[QUOTE="ianuilliam"]Demons Souls isn't third party. From Software is a third party dev, but Sony owns the IP. The game was co-developed by SCE's Japan Studio. Sony published the game (originally, anyway).

Nintendo_Ownes7

A game that is from a third-party developer is a third-party game by definition. Look at the list I provided, those are the series and games that can be considered first-party. Owning an IP doesn't make it a first-party title, that's not the definition of the term.

Treasure developed IPs for SEGA when they were first party. Treasure is a 3rd Party but every single title Treasure developed for SEGA is owned by SEGA.

They also created the Sin & Punishment series which Nintendo owns that is a 1st Party IP but Treasure is still 3rd Party.

That is not the definition. 1st party only ties into the connection between developer and publisher legally and fiscally, the term "first-party game" is only used by people on the web as an easy way to separate games by first and third party. It does not extend to the ownership of the game, since the definition is as follows:

Of a video game, developed and published by the manufacturer of the video game's respective platform or its internal developers, as opposed to third-party.

Ergo, why owning a franchise does not make it 1st party. It has to be developed and published by their owned companies, i.e. first-party developers.