A topic I had in one of my classes that I thought would be fun to share. Do you think libraries should be able to keep catalogs of different games and allow them to be checked out like a book, movie, or CD?
Printable View
A topic I had in one of my classes that I thought would be fun to share. Do you think libraries should be able to keep catalogs of different games and allow them to be checked out like a book, movie, or CD?
I see no problem with this other than the possibility of people stealing the games, but that risk exists with any medium.
I'm going to go the other way on this because I don't feel games (at this point) are as timeless as books or music. Any medium will be significantly more popular at it's release than at any other time; however books don't become as technologically obsolete as video games do. If a library buys a book it will last for several decades and be just as usable. If a library buys a video game will anyone want to play it in 10 years? Will anyone even have the means to play it in 20?
In fact, with the CD->MP3 and DVD->BluRay transitions it makes stocking music and movies in libraries much more questionable. But that is a topic for another day.
Velo brings up the only points I'd have against it -- they become less popular rather quickly.
Given the prevalence of emulation pretty much resolving Velo's very valid arguments against it, I'd say we're better off with a free and unfettered internet than libraries stocking physical copies of past titles.
Libraries in Sweden already do this. I will contest Velo's argument and say that a library should keep both selected material from past times, as well as a wider contemporary selection. Not all books a library buys are timeless, but that does not make them less worth keeping. There is a common interest in having contemporary literature that will most likely go out of style in a decade or two, because it's popular and relevant right now. So are many video games, and thus I say it is a good call to store them.
I meant timeless in the sense of the physical medium. Though video games probably decline in interest faster than books it is still the same concept, and not something that should be able to bar their inclusion.
If I want to read Patriot Games I go down to the library, check it out and read it. Same as I would in 1987. If I wanted to play FFI it would require me to still have an NES kicking around, which very few people do.
I didn't think of this before, but it is way easier to emulate an old game than to find a copy of an old book to download. This isn't something libraries should really be able to base policy on, but I imagine it seriously cuts in to demand.
Sure. Especially considering the storytelling value some have reached.
Fair point. Still, the way they solve that here is keeping a selection of consoles at the library itself, where the games can be played. They also organize gaming nights the same way they have reading aloud events and the like for other mediums.Quote:
Originally Posted by VeloZer0
If they are stocking consoles as well then I have no qualms about the concept. (Other than logistical ones that the library would have to work out.)
I hope that libraries choose to purchase and archive video games and consoles in the same way that they purchase and archive books and music. I think that the standard library will continue to expand its horizons as time moves on because of advancing technology, too.
All the libaries around us already have video games. But they are mostly educational , or puzzle games, adventure games. I wouldn't expect to find Doom at a library.
I have nothing against it, and no subjective opinion as they already all do it...
The library in my town is suffering big time because quite frankly, people see no use of going to a library anymore when we have things like Kindles, torrents, and Borders. There's just no point. So I think introducing an area for video games in the library would be a good idear. I would love to see older games in a library because places like EB Games and Gamestop get all, "WE DONT SELL THESE OLD GAMES NO MOAR".
You can find it all on EEEEBAY.
I was thinking that it might make more sense for libraries to be stocking 'culture' games over whatever the flashy game of the month is. But then I realized:
a) who are they to judge the value of archiving a game? Quite the pretentious attitude imo. Not to mention I don't think the average library staff is remotely qualified to do so. :D
b) Libraries stock the latest pulp paperbacks and trashy romance novels. I refuse to believe that bestselling games fall lower on the art scale than a lot of these.
From my experience of using public libraries (last two years or so) the main reason people go there, young people definitely, is just to use the computers and go on the internet. For that reason, I think this would be a good idea. If I'm honest, my first thought when I read this thread was that it just wouldn't be practical, but the system Rantzien outlined sounds rather good. I was also going to say it might be rather expensive, but then again I'm sure there's plenty of people (myself included) who are sitting on loads of old games they'll never play again and would happily donate to a library.
But then how do librarians decide which books to stock? Surely if they're stocking trashy romance novels and pulp paperbacks then the net is being cast pretty wide: why couldn't the same be done for computer games?Quote:
Originally Posted by VeloZer0
That was the point of the post, in my head I was applying a double standard to the stocking of books to the stocking of video games.