Veterator wrote on Apr 12, 2012, 17:27:
If they wanted to force me to a console where everything costs money and there is no use for it without paying that money, I would stop gaming today. I've already significantly cut back on what I spend waiting years for releases to drop down to the 5 and 10 dollar range.
And they are "losing money" on me, simply because I don't buy it day 1. They assume that because I wait to buy it, I must have pirated it earlier and bought it when it was super cheap. I don't like being called a pirate enough so that I will actually not buy games from companies who do that stuff specifically because of it. Nothing will ever make them happy besides you being forced to buy stuff at maximum price and paying more than that on DLC while you pay for a monthly fee.
So you've found a way that satisfies your purchasing decisions and expect it to be good enough for other people.
This shows a pattern of behavior that WHATEVER you do will not make them happy, they will find some way to make you buy things outright whether by law or by killing services making you withhold from doing so. Piracy is just a channel they can't easily kill, it does not change their ways......once they have those laws they will use them to prevent other services from coming forth that doesn't make them X per Y and give them Z control.
Consumers hold power as long as they can't be cut off from the internet due to legislation allowing ISPs to monitor them and cut them off after "infringement" that has no legal test to meet. This is already in effect with major ISPs whom also happen to be tied to content creation companies. They get to decide if you are infringing now, perhaps it will come in the form of Torrent, Dropbox, email, HTTP, FTP, Netflix, other streaming service, or you will just be questioned because you are encrypting your connections because this shit is BS.
Entitlement goes both ways, and corporations are getting laws entitling them to a lot. Eroding consumer power to demand new services be offered. Just because they limit your choices and keep you locked into a pricing scheme does not mean it's what the consumers demand. It could just as easily be the only choice offered. IE Digital Books should not be more expensive than their paper bound counterpart. Signing agreements with Apple making it even MORE expensive = lawsuit that will do nothing in the end because the companies have other ways of forcing it down our throats due to them being hugely wealthy and having influence and power due to that. They speak with a few voices with lots of money behind them, and the consumer speaks with a million voices with a few dollars behind each. It's much easier to appease the few really wealthy people...as we've seen them do in politics for many years now. Piracy just happens to be the "reason" this decade. In the 80s it was VHS and copying, they even had to update fair use to stop the abuse. And it didn't kill the industry as they claimed. In the 90s it was CDs, it also did not kill the industry....but they made extra money on it in some countries by putting "piracy taxes" on the CDs whether they were used for that or not.
They have shown themselves to be unhappy no matter what happens... this is just another farce of a debate that they reinforce purposefully by skewing numbers, eliminating services, and even buying the companies that PROMOTED digital piracy in the early stages of the internet such as Cnet who used to review torrent and P2P programs, even offering links to the program downloads AND songs on their websites. Where's the outrage over corporate sponsorship of piracy? Shouldn't they look to them for damages for promoting this behavior?