User information for Peter

Real Name
Peter
Nickname
shponglefan
Email
Concealed by request
Description
Homepage
Signed On
December 4, 2008
Supporter
-
Total Posts
420 (Amateur)
User ID
54594
Search For:
Sort Results:
Ascending
Descending
Limit Results:
 
420 Comments. 21 pages. Viewing page 13.
Newer [  1    6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  ] Older
145.
 
Re: Pirates
Dec 15, 2009, 11:04
Re: Pirates Dec 15, 2009, 11:04
Dec 15, 2009, 11:04
 
Actually, my claim is that buying a used game and downloading a pirated game have the exact same result: You play the game, the developer doesn't see a penny. This is irrefutable.

Except I've already refuted it.

You can argue that people selling used games use that money to buy new games or whatever, but that's really besides the point (and has no statistical evidence to support), as I've demonstrated repeatedly throughout this debate.

Except it's not. You want it to be besides the point because it destroys your position, but it's dead on the point.

As for statistical support, that's just a red herring. I've not tried to quantify the argument (merely qualify it), so statistical support is irrelevant. If I was arguing that there were $X dollars from the used market flowing to the new market, then I would need statistical support.

And again, you failed to address my point: If you buy a used copy of Game A, Developer A sees no money from that sale. If you sell that copy, Developer A sees no money from that sale. If you use the money from that sale to buy a new copy of Game B, Developer A still sees no money.

Again this is irrelevant because I'm talking about the markets collectively, not on a transaction by transaction basis. It's easy enough to turn that around and say that if a person buys a copy of used Game B, then finances a purchase of new Game A, then Developer A does see money from that transaction.

You can keep ranting on about upstream cash flow but you really have no statistical evidence whatsoever to support that claim. And you keep referring to developers in the plural, as if they are all the same. No. Buying a new game from Developer B doesn't help Developer A. If you buy or sell a used game from Developer A, you are screwing Developer A. It doesn't matter if you buy a new game from Developer B. Different developers, different games. Is this really that difficult to understand?

Apparently it is for you. These are just red herrings and do not refute the argument at hand, that used games markets and piracy are not the same and that money from used markets is used to finance purchases in the new market.

In fact, you already admitted this was true, but now you're desperately trying to backpeddle from that.

I'm sure you'll jump on that example and point out how ridiculous it is but it effectively summarizes your entire argument. Just replace "pirates" with "buys used copy of".

Your argument fails because there is no cash flow in your first part. In constrast, there is cash flow in a used transaction.

This comment was edited on Dec 15, 2009, 11:05.
Avatar 54594
4.
 
Re: Boris Vallejo/Julie Bell BioShock 2 Painting
Dec 15, 2009, 02:43
4.
Re: Boris Vallejo/Julie Bell BioShock 2 Painting Dec 15, 2009, 02:43
Dec 15, 2009, 02:43
 
Yeah, that painting is not their best work. Personally I think Boris's stuff is meh, but Julie is very skilled. I expected more.

This comment was edited on Dec 15, 2009, 02:44.
Avatar 54594
141.
 
Re: Pirates
Dec 15, 2009, 02:02
Re: Pirates Dec 15, 2009, 02:02
Dec 15, 2009, 02:02
 
Uh, that doesn't work very well for your argument then. If most people don't use profits from selling used games to buy new games, your whole argument goes down the toilet.

No it doesn't. My argument is that used games markets and piracy aren't the same, despite your claims to the contrary. And I've already demonstrated they aren't.

But which developers? If you buy Game A used, Developer A sees no money. If you you sell Game A and buy Game B new, Developer A still doesn't see any money. That's the glaring hole in your logic. I don't care about the industry as a whole. I care about the developers that make the games I like. If somebody buys a used copy of Psychonauts and then sells it so he can buy a new copy of Madden, Double Fine still gets screwed.

Again, you're missing the point of the argument. You claimed that piracy and used games sales are the same because no money goes to developers. But there are upstream cash flows from the used market (collectively) which go to the primary market which in turn finance developers. The only difference between that and new markets financing developers is an extra transaction. Therefore, piracy and used games markets are not the same thing.

This comment was edited on Dec 15, 2009, 02:03.
Avatar 54594
136.
 
Re: Pirates
Dec 14, 2009, 18:19
Re: Pirates Dec 14, 2009, 18:19
Dec 14, 2009, 18:19
 
I'm not sure why you keep calling this a strawman.

Because it is.

Your logic is flawed. You assume that most people use the money they get from selling used games in order to purchase new games.

The argument was never all or most, it was some. Some people do use money from used sales to purchase new games. I've done it and I've seen others do it as well. It's a fact.

The point is that you equate used sales and piracy based on the idea that no money is flowing to developers. But in the case of a used sale financing a new sale, money is flowing to developers from that used sale. It's just flowing through an intermediary (which is really no different than money flowing from customers through retailers to publishers to developers).

At this point I think I'll need to draw a picture with crayons if you still aren't understanding this.
Avatar 54594
125.
 
Re: Pirates
Dec 13, 2009, 14:06
Re: Pirates Dec 13, 2009, 14:06
Dec 13, 2009, 14:06
 
Buying a used game is no different from buying or downloading a pirated game. The developer sees no money in either case. In both cases, the developer sees money from the original sale of the new game but nothing from the subsequent transactions.

Still beating down the strawman eh? This is only true IF the person uses the proceeds from the sale to finance another used purchase. If the person buys a new game (as some people do), then the used purchase is financing the new purchase.

You keep ignoring this because you want to equate piracy and used games, but they are not the same. Period.

As for the rest of it, it's obvious you've made your choice and rationalized it to yourself. Thus, you keep handwaving away all the things you don't like. You're still wrong, but apparently you don't care, because you just want to do what benefits yourself (with lip service about rewarding the developers being just that).

This comment was edited on Dec 13, 2009, 14:08.
Avatar 54594
120.
 
Re: Pirates
Dec 12, 2009, 18:15
Re: Pirates Dec 12, 2009, 18:15
Dec 12, 2009, 18:15
 
Jerykk,

It's getting unwieldly to go through paragraph by paragraph, so I'm just going to summarize.

1) On used costs

You've created a strawman of my position. I never claimed every single used purchase finances a new purchase. But some do. You originally claimed that there's no difference between buying used and pirating. But if even some of the cash from the used market flows to the new market, then there is a difference. So far you've just knocked down a strawman, not my original argument.

The only way the used market is detrimental to developers/publishers is if used sales cannibalize new sales to the point that upstream cash flows from the used market can't compensate. But so far nobody has crunched the numbers on that.

2) On support costs

I found the reference. It's a blog entry by Michael Russell re: SiN Episodes: http://www.romsteady.net/blog/2006/07/games-hidden-cost-of-piracy.html

He states:

"For the last five weeks, support requests for the pirated version of the game outnumbered support requests from legitimate purchasers. Last week, the pirates outnumbered the true customers by almost five to one.

I really pride myself on the level of service I have been able to provide to our customers, but it is really disheartening to see the number of people who not only stole our game, but then steal my time in an effort to truly get something for nothing."


In addition, legit servers do get hit due to pirated use (see Xbox Live or Stardock servers re: Demigod). And it can have other negative effects (I recall legit keys getting inadvertently banned in H-L due to piracy). Just a couple examples off the top of my head, and I'm sure there are more. The end of the day, your "try before you buy" piracy policy has an upfront negative cost impact. And somehow I doubt you are factoring interest payments into your much vaunted support for the developers.

3) And yes, you get to play many many more games than me. Because you're unethical and you break the law. Just like you get a "benefit of piracy", I'm sure someone out there committing petty larceny is getting a benefit too. But they probably don't care that they may inadvertently screw someone else over in the process, just like you don't seem to care either. So you're still neither just nor right.

4) As for rewarding developers who've "earned it", this is just an excuse. It's an excuse to justify to yourself that what you are doing isn't wrong or bad. Like someone else said earlier, it's like arguing with a dope user justifying their habit.

This comment was edited on Dec 12, 2009, 18:18.
Avatar 54594
116.
 
Re: Pirates
Dec 11, 2009, 17:19
Re: Pirates Dec 11, 2009, 17:19
Dec 11, 2009, 17:19
 
Of course I never, ever pay for a game that won't run or is very buggy and doesn't live up to the publisher/developer's promises. I win.

It's pretty obvious you guys are only paying lipservice to the developer's welfare.
Avatar 54594
113.
 
Re: Pirates
Dec 11, 2009, 13:52
Re: Pirates Dec 11, 2009, 13:52
Dec 11, 2009, 13:52
 
1) You assume that person A is going to buy a new game instead of a used one.

Yes, this is kind of the point of the scenario. This point being, if person A buys new games and is using money from Person B to do so, then Person B is indirectly financing those purchases. I've seen this happen (many times) with my own eyes (i.e. trade-ins at EB, etc). So there is nothing you can possibly argue against here.

2) Developers don't make any money from the game that Person B bought from Person A. If Person B bought a new copy, they would.

Yes, but that's not the bloody point. The point is the stream of cash flows flowing from the secondary (used market) to the primary (new) market. That's how economy-type stuff works.

How are you not understanding this?

What are you blathering about? if you want to play a pirated game online, you have to play on a cracked server which you or another pirate hosts. If you pirate a game and then complain about it on a forum, you are retarded and should be shot. Developers make patches anyway and pirate groups crack them. Pirates using patches has no effect on developers whatsoever.

There was a publisher/developer awhile back that stated that the majority of their support was going to pirated copies (I'll try to find the specific reference). Furthermore, people do play pirated copies on legit servers (hence things like key-bans).

My point stands.

This is true. However, two facts support my position and not yours:

1) Publishers and developers have publically stated that used sales are a problem.
2) Publishers are starting to use 0-day DLC (exclusive to new copies of games) more frequently.

I'll give you this. However, publishers only ever focus on cannibalized in their argument and never mention upstream cash flow from the used market. So I'm skeptical if they are telling the whole story or are just trying to spin things in their favor.

Unfortunately, your attempt to point out that point failed horribly.

Considering you did little more than hand-wave it away, my point stands.

I probably pay for 1 in 5 games I download

In constrast I pay for 100% of games I obtain (including a rather large backlog on Steam I haven't even played yet). I win.

All are irrelevant to developers and publishers. The only thing that matters to them is how much you pay them.

Timing is not irrelevant. Supporting games people obtained for free costs them money in the short run. Ethics also matter as many a developer has stated how frustrated they are with people leeching of their hard work.

Since you obviously don't give a shit about them, I can see why you'd think this way. But don't go projecting your own callous attitude towards ethics onto them.

It doesn't help the industry when people buy used games because the industry doesn't see any money from it. By your logic, it helps the industry when some guy in China sells 5000 pirated copies of a game on a street corner. If you only buy used games, you are not helping the industry at all.

Do you not understand how basic economics works? Do you not understand the concept of cash flow? Do you not understand the idea of cash in one market financing purchases in another?

Short of a diagram, I don't think I could possibly make this any simpler.

This comment was edited on Dec 11, 2009, 14:01.
Avatar 54594
98.
 
Re: Pirates
Dec 10, 2009, 17:02
98.
Re: Pirates Dec 10, 2009, 17:02
Dec 10, 2009, 17:02
 
Because the fact that people sell games to get new games does not prove that if they did not have that option they would not still buy new games.

People don't have unlimited budgets. I remember as a kid/teen (prior to having a job) to have to ration my money. Selling old games was a way to afford new ones.

I think it's pretty obvious and your dismissal is just to suit your own ends. When one cares about developers and the industry one does not go around them and procure games in a way that does not give anything to the creators. Both pirates and used game buyers do this to equal measure.

Except they are not equal as I have now repeatedly pointed out. The used market funds the primary market, which in turn funds developers. So your point is invalid.

I get that you think used sales fund future new sales or DLC sales that this makes it better, and in some small way I am sure it does, but the point that neither buyer gives a shit about supporting the people who made the game is a fact.

Which you still don't know, so your point is again moot.

This comment was edited on Dec 10, 2009, 17:05.
Avatar 54594
97.
 
Re: EA on
Dec 10, 2009, 17:00
97.
Re: EA on Dec 10, 2009, 17:00
Dec 10, 2009, 17:00
 
They're already violating the social contract by refusing to allow me to return a product that doesn't work as advertised. So I don't really see a problem with violating the contract myself to ensure that the product is actually what they claim it is.

If the product doesn't actually work, then you should be able to return it. But there's a difference between that and you not enjoying something.

As I said earlier, if I go to a sporting event and I don't enjoy it, can I get refund? The answer is no.

As someone pointed out earlier in the thread, "Business isn't fair, it never has been and never will be."

This isn't about business, this is about ethics.

I'm going to pay a price I can live with, regardless of how long I have to wait. If there's no pirated version available, I just wait however many weeks or months it takes for one to show up.

Why pirate at all? All you are doing is saying "I want it noooow, but I'm too cheap to pay".
Avatar 54594
87.
 
Re: Pirates
Dec 10, 2009, 11:22
87.
Re: Pirates Dec 10, 2009, 11:22
Dec 10, 2009, 11:22
 
That thought assumes that the inability to sell games you purchased would hinder you from more buying more games, which I am not willing to stipulate.

Why not? People who trade in games usually do so to fund new games.

I am sure it would effect new game sales to some degree, but enough to compare to the money lost in Gamestop through their massive used sales initiative? I doubt it.

This is where the actual #'s are needed, which nobody has calculated.

However, this is completely besides the original point which was that piracy and used games are exactly the same. They aren't. They aren't anywhere close to the same.

These people do not care, just like pirates do not care. It is the same mentality.

As you have no way of knowing this, your speculations of the motivations of used games buyers versus pirates is irrelevant.
Avatar 54594
86.
 
Re: Pirates
Dec 10, 2009, 11:14
86.
Re: Pirates Dec 10, 2009, 11:14
Dec 10, 2009, 11:14
 
1) Buying a used copy of game provides developers and publishers with exactly $0.

Follow the cash flows: Person A buys new game. Person A sells game to Person B. Person A uses cash from sale to finance purchasing another new game. Therefore Person B has indirectly financed a new game.

While some new game sales are likely cannilibized via used sales, so far nobody has quantified if the difference outweights upstream cash flows from used markets.

Points #2 and 3 were irrelevant to my point.

I didn't ignore it, I just don't understand it. Please explain to me how pirating a game and then buying it for $30 is different from not pirating it and buying it for $30. The end result is exactly the same.

Again, the difference is timing. If you buy a game and utilize certain resources provided by developers in support of that game (multiplayer servers, online forums, patches, whatever), then you are helping finance those costs. If you download the game then pay for it well after the fact, you're not helping finance those costs until much later. So you're piggybacking on the finances of those who buy the games while you are enjoying it for free.

You need to realize that arguing ethics isn't going to sway me at all. You need to argue logic.

As we have already established you are unethical, this doesn't surprise me at all.

Given publishers' public denouncement of used sales and their concerted efforts to quell them, I'd say that no, the upstream cash flows from the used market don't overcome cannibalization of new game sales.

Given that there are no actual published numbers on this, I think it's premature to conclude anything. If they have numbers, they aren't being forthcoming.

I think they would much rather be making money on $50 games, rather than having consumers wait until they are on sale for $5.

Of course. But they aren't going to get $50 from everyone. There's a sliding demand curve. But people who don't want the game @ $50 shouldn't be downloading it for free.

If you can get away with it, the law really doesn't apply to you. Again, laws are nothing without enforcement.

You really don't understand my point.

In your case, the developers lost a potential sale because you were unwilling to take a risk and instead presumed to know the exact worth of a game you've never played. In my case, I tried a game I wasn't sure about, liked it and then rewarded the developers appropriately.

That's a very sketchy rationalization. Especially since as I already pointed out, the developers are likely incurring costs due to your freeloading, versus no costs due to my not buying of their game.

Out of curiosity, how many games do you pay for versus games you download? How much, on average, do you pay per game?

I don't think you want to permit yourself to accept the logical conclusion that a pirate paying $30 for game is exactly the same as a non-pirate paying $30 for a game.

It's not, as I've already demostrated. The difference is a) timing, b) non-violation of the social contract, and c) non-violation of the law.

Nope. Ethics are completely subjective and laws are completely arbitrary. The act of piracy itself has no inherent moral value to me. What matters to me are the end results. If piracy helps me make better purchases and in turn reward better developers, that's all I care about.

So in short, all you give a shit about is yourself and what you can get away with.

The scary thing about your view is that this sort of thing is toxic in the real world. It leads to the Bernie Madoffs, Jeff Skillings, and Garth Drabinskys of the world. And we see where it got them.

At the end of the day you can rationalize all you want, but you'll never be right.

In the end, your argument is basically this: You don't like the idea that people can use a product before paying for it. That's it. It doesn't matter how much you pay or whether developers see a penny of it. All that matters is whether or not you play a game before buying it. Waiting for a game to go on sale for $5 is perfectly ethical, even if the enjoyment you derive from that game is worth $50. It's perfectly okay, though, because it's legal and if it's legal, it must be right.

It's the ethical choice per the social contract and the only legal choice per the law.

You seem to be taking an "ends justifies the means" approach, where in this case the ends is all about yourself. In society there are more parties than just you.

This comment was edited on Dec 10, 2009, 11:14.
Avatar 54594
80.
 
Re: Pirates
Dec 10, 2009, 02:35
80.
Re: Pirates Dec 10, 2009, 02:35
Dec 10, 2009, 02:35
 
He is correct in the fact that a used sale and a pirated game are the same thing. If your focus is on supporting the PC as a gaming platform, as is mine, then you avoid both.

He's not correct. A used game sale provides a stream of cash to either retailers or individuals, which in turn helps feed the primary market. Piracy doesn't have any cash flow.
Avatar 54594
78.
 
Re: EA on
Dec 10, 2009, 00:58
78.
Re: EA on Dec 10, 2009, 00:58
Dec 10, 2009, 00:58
 
Jerykk, I noticed you completely ignored the very first part of my post regarding variable support costs and games in the marketplace. That right there is a key difference between waiting and buying a game, versus obtaining a pirated copy, then buying it later.

But what about everybody in-between?

You wait. You buy the game when it hits a price you want to pay. You don't download now, then pay later. Unless you want to break the law and be unethical.

If you buy used games, there is no profit.

Actually, it depends on whether upstream cash flows from the used market overcomes cannibilization of new game sales. But that's a discussion for another time.

If you only buy games once they're really cheap, there's usually no profit.

Not necessarily. I imagine they are making money on $5 games on Steam (distribution costs being minimal), otherwise there would be little point in having all those sales.

They are inherently arbitrary.

You're confused here. My point is not about the fact that people create laws; my point is that the application of laws in principle is that they apply to everyone. IOW, you don't get to go out and simply disregard any law you don't like. Even if enforcement is uneven (since not all lawbreakers are caught), the laws still technically apply to all.

Or if you don't believe me, go commit a burglary, then try to argue the law doesn't apply to you.

Wouldn't it be more ethical to buy the game at the original asked price?

This gets back to the idea of negotiation. I am abstaining until the price drops. If the price doesn't drop, I don't buy the game.

We decide on how much we value the product and then we pay that much to the creator.

The difference is again, I am making an ethical trade off as per the social contract (i.e. not playing the game) and you are not. You want the game whenever you want it (regardless of price), then want to also choose to pick any price you want. That's not the way things work. The only way you can do so is to be unethical and ignore the other party in the contract.


I don't see any difference.

That's because recongizing the difference would be recognizing that you've made the unethical choice here. I don't think you want to permit yourself to do that.

I decide by playing the game myself.

By illegally downloading it.

Your approach has a high margin of error.

Not really. I would say that over 95% of the time I am satisfied with my purchase.

There is no margin of error in my approach. I know exactly how I feel about any game before I buy it. It is the very definition of informed purchase.

And you just have to be unethical and violate the law in the process. And you still don't see a problem here?

This comment was edited on Dec 10, 2009, 00:59.
Avatar 54594
76.
 
Re: EA on
Dec 9, 2009, 22:56
76.
Re: EA on Dec 9, 2009, 22:56
Dec 9, 2009, 22:56
 
If they had true large fixed overhead costs, you wouldn't see some games with a 1-3 million dollar budget and others with a 40 million dollar budget.

Fixed, variable and overhead costs have nothing to do with absolute numbers. It's about the nature of the costs.

Overhead costs are portions of costs associated with the company as a whole which are assigned to a particular product (i.e. administration and general business costs).

Fixed costs are costs assigned to a particular product regardless of units produced (i.e. programmer salaries).

Variable costs are costs assigned incurred on a per unit basis (i.e. packaging & distribution).

Video games are mostly fixed costs and overhead costs, with a small variable component.

This comment was edited on Dec 9, 2009, 22:57.
Avatar 54594
70.
 
Re: EA on
Dec 9, 2009, 13:00
70.
Re: EA on Dec 9, 2009, 13:00
Dec 9, 2009, 13:00
 
That makes it even worse. If you're buying a game in the bargain bin, you might as well pirate it because the developers likely won't see a dime anyway.

And fuck over the retailer? The reason bargin bins exist is so retailers can re-coup some cost on their investment (even at a loss). There are more people involved than just developers and end consumers, something people here seem to conveniently forget.

This comment was edited on Dec 9, 2009, 13:01.
Avatar 54594
69.
 
Re: EA on
Dec 9, 2009, 12:58
69.
Re: EA on Dec 9, 2009, 12:58
Dec 9, 2009, 12:58
 
You haven't really provided a good argument as to why it's wrong though. Buying a game for $30 is buying a game for $30. It doesn't really matter if you pirate it beforehand. You're still buying it for $30. I could argue that only buying games on sale is wrong. After all, many games are worth well more than $10-30 dollars. However, you can't really form a cogent argument based on subjective notions of right and wrong.

From an economic standpoint, there are variable ongoing costs associated with supporting games in the current market (i.e. support, patches, multiplayer servers, online forums, etc). People who pirate a game are essentially piggybacking on the finances of those who pay for the game. This also doesn't seem particularly fair to those who fork over the $60 upfront cost versus those who download it for free. Those who pay are supporting (financially) those who don't.

You claimed that "Laws themselves are arbitrary rules". They are not arbitrary in principle. Laws are supposed to apply to everyone equally. So if you decide you don't like those laws, you don't get to create your own. You simply break the ones you don't like. Again, you can try to rationalize this all you want, but you are breaking the law not reinventing them (and thus violating the social contract).

Going back to the social contract, what we have in place is very simple: someone makes and prices a product. Consumer decides to pay price and obtain the product. If not, the only ethical choices are to negotiate the price or abstain. That is the only equitable solution for both parties. But you seem to think the other party doesn't matter and you get to invent your own rules. Again, you can do that, but it's unethical.

This is the difference between waiting for a price drop versus downloading the game now. I choose to abstain from purchasing a game at price $X. As a consequence, I do not play the game. You, on the other hand, want to have your cake and eat it to. You think the rules don't apply to you, but you want what the developers are creating anyway. If you were ethical, you'd simply wait then buy and enjoy the game after it has hit a price you can live with. The fact that you want to enjoy the game but pick your own arbitrary price is a just a rationalization for unethical behavior on your part.
Avatar 54594
63.
 
Re: EA on
Dec 9, 2009, 10:18
63.
Re: EA on Dec 9, 2009, 10:18
Dec 9, 2009, 10:18
 
That's just a little contradictory. Sure, you may not pirate games but if you only buy them once they've hit the bargain bin, you can't exactly criticize pirates for being cheap. In the end, you are both depriving developers of the full value of their product (assuming that the pirates either don't buy the games or wait until they are cheap).

Sure I can. The difference is that many pirates don't care when they pirate the game. If it's sitting on a retail shelf @ $60 and they don't want to pay that, they pirate the game. Me, I don't. I wait. So essentially I'm trading off paying a premium versus waiting for publishers to lower the price.

Piracy is simply the best way to do this.

What a crock of B.S. This is just a poor rationaliation to justify piracy. The game companies ultimately set the price based on recouping costs and attempting to generate profit. If a person doesn't want to pay $X, wait until the game companies decide they can afford to drop the price or don't play it. Pirating it says "I want the game everyone is paying $X for right now, but I'm too much of a cheapskate to buy it at that price". You don't want to pay the price, wait 'til it drops in price. What is so difficult about that?

There is no more reliable or accurate way to judge a game than to play the full version yourself.

Yes, but the real world doesn't work like that. If I buy tickets to a sporting event, I don't get to decide after-the-fact that the tickets were only worth $50 to me instead of $100. Consumers assume some of the risk. And deciding to wait until a game becomes less expensive is part of that trade off.

There is also nothing stopping you from buying games you've pirated. Hell, you can buy multiple copies if you want just to reward the developers for making games you really like. You can even set arbitrary rules for yourself, like how long you allow yourself to play the game before deciding whether to buy it.

Which is again poor attempts at justifying piracy. In an anarchist world, you can make all the "arbitrary rules" you want. But you're violating the social contract in the process.

While other people are buying a game at $60 and you're downloading the game for free, what you are doing is immoral.

If you honestly believe that piracy is inherently evil and can never, ever be justified under any circumstances, that's fine.

I didn't quite say that. But I would suggest that in the vast majority of cases, it's certainly immoral and not justifiable. Now if someone wants to pirate and can at least admit that, then fine. But I see people like yourself who jump through all these mental rationalizations to escape the fact that what you are doing is wrong.

But please don't try to argue your point based on logic or reason because morality has little to do with either. To me, piracy is simply a means to an end. I buy only the games I know I like and only the developers that deserve my money get it. The better their games, the more money they get from me. It works out well for everyone involved.

Rationalize it all you want, what you are doing is immoral.

This comment was edited on Dec 9, 2009, 10:19.
Avatar 54594
39.
 
Re: EA on
Dec 9, 2009, 02:35
39.
Re: EA on Dec 9, 2009, 02:35
Dec 9, 2009, 02:35
 
How do you know if you don't like a game until you play it..? You can't rent PC games and most games these days don't have demos. Sure, you can read reviews or listen to word of mouth but that doesn't really tell you if you like it.

True, but reviews and asking other gamers gives a lot of insight. I tend to post on other gaming forums and ask very specific questions. Then I determine whether it sounds like a game I want to play and figure out how much I want to pay for it. When it hits the price I want to pay, I buy it. I don't pirate something just because I don't know if I'll like it. And heck, thanks to Steam and some of the ridiculous deals on there, most games I buy these days hardly cost more than a rental anyway.

Pirating a game but not paying for it is a giant signal that a person wants the game, but is too cheap to buy it at the offered price. Now if people want to admit they are cheapskates, fine. But I'm tired of all these rationalizations to defend piracy.

This comment was edited on Dec 9, 2009, 02:36.
Avatar 54594
32.
 
Re: EA on
Dec 9, 2009, 01:44
32.
Re: EA on Dec 9, 2009, 01:44
Dec 9, 2009, 01:44
 
The risk is solely on the consumer, period, and consumers will fight back any way they can! Plus, you can't beat free or try before you buy huh? Remember in the good old days when companies stood behind their products? Now a days companies simply try to fuck you over, no wonder consumers are so defensive these days!

None of this is any excuse for piracy. People who bitch and moan about the games industry, then turn around and pirate games are hypocrites, pure and simple. Don't like a game? Don't buy it. Don't think a game is worth $50? Wait until it hits a price you can live with. People who pirate games aren't on some moral, rightous crusade. They're just cheapskates.

And the "good old days" is a myth. Things are neither better nor worse. Some companies stand behind their products, some do not. The gaming industry has been like this for decades.

This comment was edited on Dec 9, 2009, 01:44.
Avatar 54594
420 Comments. 21 pages. Viewing page 13.
Newer [  1    6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  ] Older