Unless there’s imminently mineable gold in the hills of a remaster or re-release, the video game industry rarely displays interest in its own history. Last year, the Video Game History Foundation published a study showing that 87 percent of classic video games released in the US verge on inaccessible. That makes the archival work done by the VGHF all the more important, but the road to long-term preservation is full of potholes. On this week’s Aftermath Hours, we talk to VGHF founder and director Frank Cifaldi about what those look like and how you can help.
In an uncommon twist, Frank joins us near the end of the episode, because he had multiple other podcasts to be on the day we recorded (he’s very important). We discuss the unique needs of a video game archive – for example, remote access to games, something the US Copyright Office recently refused to grant after a three-year effort on the part of the VGHF and the Software Preservation Network – and what the Foundation has been able to accomplish this year despite a government and industry that often fail to recognize the importance of its work.
Also on this episode: We (minus Frank) talk about Ubisoft’s decision to pull the plug on XDefiant, OpenAI’s increasingly money-hungry forays into subscriptions (and maybe ads), and our various hyperfixations in Candy Cabs and Star Wars Outlaws. Oh, and speaking of hyperfixations, Chris says that New Year's resolutions are just an amateur hour version of a real project, so take that, me and everybody else.
You can find this week's episode below and on Spotify, Apple, or wherever else you prefer to listen to podcasts. If you like what you hear, make sure to leave a review so that we can help preserve video game history via a format accessible to and beloved by all: blogs.
Here’s an excerpt from our conversation (edited for length and clarity):
Nathan: As we reach the end of the year and people are reflecting on what they’ve done – and especially going into your funding drive – what has the Video Game History Foundation accomplished this year? What have been your focuses, and what have you managed to achieve?
Frank: This year has been a lot of building for the future internally, so not very interesting at the outset things. But the actual labor on this digital library, the actual building of the tools that do correct character recognition for magazines [has been a focus]. That one’s OCRAP, right Phil? What’s that stand for?
VGHF library director Phil Salvador [off screen]: Optical Character Recognition For Archival Purposes.
Chris: That’s so good.
Frank: It talks to another tool called BUBSY. Something you overhear pretty often here are phrases like “Should we give BUBSY admin access?” and it’s an actual, real thing.
Building those tools out for our library launch has been a lot of our focus. But beyond that, I think the biggest public-facing thing is that we testified in front of the Copyright Office to try to lift copyright restrictions for libraries and archives to provide remote access to video games, which is something that is not legal to do in any scenario unless you have explicit copyright permission from the copyright holder. That didn’t end up going through. I don’t know if I want to rant publicly about my real thoughts about what went down there, but that’s kind of building off some other work we’ve done to raise awareness of preservation issues.
A lot of people saw a study we put out last year which was able to demonstrate that nine out of ten classic games are out of print. You can’t buy them. That’s something that I think any one of us here kind of inherently knew, but that the industry wasn’t acknowledging. The last time we tried to get a copyright exemption, [rightsholder groups] were able to successfully argue to the Copyright Office that the industry does a great job of keeping its history in print. So that’s why we did this study to be like “No, you don’t.”
Nathan: What did [the Entertainment Software Association and others associated with rightsholders] argue this time? Now that the study is out there, how did they once again say “No, everything is fine”?
Frank: The argument basically comes down to “We believe there will be market harm if people can play video games remotely through a library.” That people will stop buying video games because they can play some games for free.
Nathan: That’s a pretty insane argument, but OK.
Chris: The MS-DOS version of Muppet Treasure Island must be protected.
Nathan: Otherwise I won’t buy the 18th Skyrim re-release.
Frank: Right, if they can play Muppet Treasure Island, they’re not gonna buy Indiana Jones.
Chris: Simple as that!
Nathan: I was wondering about this in relation to other recent developments: I’m sure you saw that GOG is having to delist the Warcraft games because Blizzard put out their own remasters, but GOG said they’re still going to continue to update them to run on modern hardware [as part of its Preservation Program]. GOG is a store. Their number one goal is not to preserve history; it’s to make money. But do you think efforts like that still matter? Are they still important in the grand scheme of things?
Frank: I’ve been saying for a long time that there are many forms of preservation, and some of them can be commercial. I think there’s a cultural preservation element to re-releasing games, for example. That is a form of cultural preservation: keeping franchises in the public eye.
I don’t think you meant to be reductive, but GOG has a commercial interest, of course, but it’s coming from a place of caring.
Nathan: Oh yeah, they obviously care a lot.
Frank: That said, this is the job of an archive. I would never trust a commercial entity for permanent preservation – or at least an attempt at permanent preservation. I’m really glad they’re doing it. It is a temporary solution for a real problem. I don’t believe that GOG lasts forever, whereas I think a well-funded archive might. And I’m not even necessarily saying ours; we’re not that well-funded yet.
But the point is, that is the job of a library and an archivist historically. Kind of going back to even the [ESA] thing – how the availability of old stuff for free would hurt the current market – I think we live in a world where if a library was a new idea, everyone would laugh it off.
Nathan: Oh, definitely. They’d be like “That’s socialism!”
Frank: Right, exactly. So it doesn’t surprise me that it’s a tremendous uphill battle to modernize the concept of a library. It makes a lot of sense to me.
