AVID:Requests for Comment/Move almost all video game logos' "availability" tiers to "uncommon" as a minimum

Move almost all video game logos' "availability" tiers to "uncommon" as a minimum
This is going to be a very bold and likely controversial proposal, and I expect there will be some serious debates over this - but hear me out. As the charts of availability were crafted in an era where physical copies were the main driving factor for game logos, the community ran with that idea (and then-recent platforms like the PS2, DS, and 360 were unlikely to be emulated, at least accurately any time then). However, in the years since the category has been added, emulation of video game platforms beyond the 16-bit/32-bit generation have become much stronger and more accurate; and can easily be run on semi-decent hardware (or less with earlier platforms!) for at least PS2/GameCube-level hardware. Plenty of captures in recent times have been from emulators as well, and we've taken those as valid captures (especially since video playback is a relatively trivial task for most emulators as they don't even need to run 3D at 100%) as well.

As emulation has become much more prominent in recent years, it thus has displaced the need for original hardware and native captures as they have become acceptable enough to function as a replacement. Combine this with the relatively trivial nature of finding various images and ROMs through your favorite locations to find them (to say the least), and now you can start to see why I believe it has become trivial to find most video game logos, and thus it's easy to now call them as "uncommon" as a minimum, as you can easily emulate the device to find what you're looking for, no questions asked. Basically, it takes away the fuss of finding copies yourself - and thus makes it much easier for everyone - even if a logo appears on just one game, it can easily be reached.

Now of course, gaming logos that were already common (major publishers, for example) will keep their positions regardless. As for what the exceptions to the rule may be? Well, the big one is that if the platform is undocumented and obscure, and thus cannot be emulated - this would mainly be a slew of obscure consoles (think Super A'can-level or lower), or educational devices - as these devices have very little documentation going for them online, and can only be seen on original hardware (especially as most of these do not have a means of direct video capture). These platforms would obviously get their "rare" availability kept. However, this only means completely unemulatable platforms, not "hard to emulate" platforms (if it's on MAME/MESS for example, it doesn't count!).

Obviously, there's still some tweaks to be worked on here, and I'm glad to be open with some changes to this formula. However, it's about time gaming logo availability should be brought forward into the 2020s, accounting for the leaps in emulators that have transpired. There's much work to be done, but I hope you folks understand where I'm getting at here. Solarstrike (talk) 20:52, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) This doesn't make any sense as a requirement, since the whole point of the Availability section is to list primary sources where the logo can be found. In the case of video games, it's gauging where the logo appeared, on what games and consoles, and its lifespan. Of course you can capture these logos using emulators, just like how you can capture movie logos by illegaly pirating the movies rather than going out and buying a DVD of it, but it doesn't make the logos any more or less common just because there are alternate routes. Changing the requirements to 'uncommon' for video game logos sets a weird precedent that IMO is gonna end in every single logo being listed as Common just because there are videos of it on Youtube. TL;DR: I oppose this requirement, it doesn't line up with how Availability is gauged on every other type of logo. LoganStuff (talk) 21:11, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * 2) . I'm sorry Sol, but this just doesn't work and contradicts the other mediums. Dominicmgm (talk) 21:13, 10 February 2023 (UTC)