|
|
 |
| [Aug 27, 2010, 10:50 am ET] - Share - Viewing Comments |
Ars Technica - Buying used games: Developers, publishers don't care about you. Thanks Mark.
That's a bold statement, as gamers hate to be called pirates—and they will pirate your game in retaliation for being called pirates—but in both cases, the people behind the game aren't making any money from the sale. If you take the game online you're using their time and money. So where's the argument that developers need to keep these people happy?
BitMob - More Pixar, Less Uwe: How Hollywood Can Make a "Good" Video Game Movie.
This formula is responsible for movies of varying degrees of commercial success, though from a critic's perspective, they’re typically considered awful-to-middling films. For every Resident Evil -- arguably the only video game movie that stands on its own without much need to know the subject material -- we get several Uwe Boll movies and countless other generally bad adaptations. Most video game movies either go for broke on the game’s subject matter (Mortal Kombat, Prince of Persia) or try to adapt that same subject matter into something more filmlike (Street Fighter: The Legend of Chun-Li, almost every Uwe Boll movie). But few of them are able to strike a balance that will resonate with fans and interest the general movie-going audience alike.
Post Comment
Enter the details of the comment
you'd like to post in the boxes below and click the button at
the bottom of the form.
 |
| 73. |
Re: Ars Technica - Buying used games |
Aug 28, 2010, 20:33 |
JohnnyRotten |
|
|
Sepharo wrote on Aug 28, 2010, 20:21:
What is this utter bullshit that used is like piracy. Piracy is not even in the same ballpark with buying new and used.
There is no difference seen to the developer between purchasing used and pirating.
While maybe grammatically awkward, I never said that those two are the same. If you buy used the total sold doesn't receive a tick, if you pirate the total sold doesn't receive a tick.
The current structure of the sentence isn't grammatically awkward, it appears to me to be intellectually dishonest phrasing along the lines of “when did you stop beating your wife”. I read this as you trying to build an implicit relationship between the used market (legal) and piracy (illegal) with the reader.
If you are not, with the nearly infinite bucket of possibilities, why then pick piracy? Why pick something that is illegal to define the “other” activity? How about instead phrase it as “buying new” and “everything else under the sun that is legal” since it will yield the same result you describe (If you buy used the total sold doesn't receive a tick, etc.).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
.. ..
Copyright © 1996-2013 Stephen Heaslip. All rights reserved.
All trademarks are properties of their respective owners.
Twitter 
