Temple of The Roguelike Forums
Websites => Off-topic (Locked) => Topic started by: U on March 18, 2011, 12:28:17 PM
-
Ok, after playing Zangband for hundredth time, I decided lets see what do the commercial FRPs of today look like. So I tried DAO DA II, and ME(2).
I was first surprised that my laptop which is four years old was still able to run these games.
So what do they look like? Seems a lot of money goes in the production, real voice actors, even real actors (like martin sheen), spectacular visuals (art is a different topic, tho), all in all an equivalent of Hollywood movies in the gaming world.
And then there are reviewers from all over the web touting these products for mass consumption as something revolutionary and legendary. Ok, voice acting is breathtaking, but the rest - a typical holywood plot, space-opera cliches (in the case of ME2 it is obvious where their inspiration comes from - SF pulp from the factory of Hugo Gernsback and the like). It is sad really.
Will I see in a game something so amazing as in the writings of Leguin, Zelazni, or Clarke?
Ok, back to my cyberdemons ...
-
Last good role-playing game was Ultima Underworld 2. RPGs then became fast paced action games that I can't play. You need those reflexes of 15 year old nerd to play them.
-
Well, if we were hyper-graphics nerds, we wouldn't be playing roguelikes to begin with...
A year ago I bought a cheapo desktop for gaming, and still, lately I find myself playing almost only RLs... they just have a gameplay value that's almost unbeatable, but not clawing your eyes out in case of bad graphics is a requirement.
Anyway, I'm always like at least 3 years behind in commercial games stuff because I just won't f*ckin pay 50 bucks for a DVD... when I actually buy an original game it's usually a newspaper collection release for 6€ and, in truth, I'm buying the password for online play...
Srsly, 40++ € for a plastic disk? like hell. ::)
-
...not clawing your eyes out in case of bad graphics is a requirement.
If you're feeling the need to claw out your eyes, then stop playing Roguelikes with tilesets, and soak in some soothing ASCII or ANSI instead.
I haven't played a commercial game in a while. I like to tell myself that it is because I have good taste, but my low system resources probably have something to do with it too.
-
...not clawing your eyes out in case of bad graphics is a requirement.
If you're feeling the need to claw out your eyes, then stop playing Roguelikes with tilesets, and soak in some soothing ASCII or ANSI instead.
But I don't! Seriously, I can't share the confrontation of tiles vs. ascii. I like tiles because I like anything pixel-artish; and I like ascii because they can make a perfectly fine graphic display, and it's like *reading* a game: your imagination puts a lot into it, among other virtues. Another, completely different issue altogether, is if a given RL output looks fugly.
I haven't played a commercial game in a while. I like to tell myself that it is because I have good taste, but my low system resources probably have something to do with it too.
...My love for pixels comes from a period in my life in which I was stuck with a shitty computer in which I could only play 16-bit console emulators and the like.
-
Srsly, 40++ € for a plastic disk? like hell. ::)
Here in Russia, we just get everything from torrents for free. But don't tell that anybody.
Last modern RPG i've played are Fallout 3 and Neverwinter Nights 2 - well, the story is no match to Leguin or Zelazni, but is pretty interesting.
NWN is like finished Incursion (with more classes, spells, and levels) but without random world. So it is very playable, but playable only 1-2 times.
-
Here in spain it's mostly the same, but hush hush... lately I read we're on the Evil Axis of Piracy... ARRRRR!!!.
I played FO3 a lot, have you tried New Vegas?
Just today I bought Lord of Light by Zelazny in some kind of non-profit garage sale for 1€. It's lysergic.
-
It's not piracy, it's unauthorized coping. Megacorporations are using label Piracy to convince us that it's bad :)
Perhaps I should try New Vegas, I'm just afraid to spoil the pleasure from original game.
-
FNV has it's good spots and it's shortcomings, but overall, has a richer environment than FO3.
-
Ok, after playing Zangband for hundredth time, I decided lets see what do the commercial FRPs of today look like. So I tried DAO DA II, and ME(2).
I am quite curious: As a non-fan of Dragon Age, did you feel that DA2 was better or worse than DA:O?
-
Megacorporations are using label Piracy to convince us that it's bad :)
It's bad if you don't get money from what you are doing as your job. Also, it's bad to steal things. Piracy is stealing.
-
It's bad if you don't get money from what you are doing as your job. Also, it's bad to steal things. Piracy is stealing.
Forgive me, Krice, but this isn't completely accurate.
It is bad if one doesn't get money from what one is doing as his job, but, so long as his rights are respected, it is not anyone's problem but his own, so this is not relevant.
Software piracy is not stealing things. Software piracy is violating the agreement that you accepted when you by a license for software. People mistakenly think that they're buying a copy of the software. What they're really buying is the license to use a copy of the software. It's an agreement that, if they offer money, they can and will use the software as the license stipulates, and they should be held to the agreement they made. Software piracy is an injustice, but it's a different injustice than stealing.
Now, exactly how that agreement is presented may be a matter for some dispute, as you usually don't agree until you actually install the software. I believe that the license should be printed on the box, or it should be otherwise more obviously placed so that it is clear what rights you are buying.
-
Software piracy is an injustice, but it's a different injustice than stealing.
It's stealing. I'm sorry, but that's how it is. Now, imagine yourself creating a cool commercial game that no one buys (but pirates play it). What happened? You just got robbed. You would have got money, but you didn't because of piracy. Sucks, doesn't it?
-
Now, imagine yourself creating a cool commercial game that no one buys (but pirates play it). What happened? You just got robbed. You would have got money, but you didn't because of piracy. Sucks, doesn't it?
This is an appeal to pity. "I don't like it," is insufficient reason for others to enforce particular conditions upon the public, and it doesn't really support the point.
I do agree with you that software piracy is a wrong. I suppose I really have taken objection to your definition of "stealing". I figured that the supporters of software piracy would claim that it isn't stealing because you're not depriving the author use of the object or whatever, so I just wanted to clarify exactly why I thought it a wrong. I was debating semantics. Of course, I wouldn't be so stupid as to suppose that your use of the word "stealing"--whatever it means precisely--makes you incorrect, but I wanted to counter any arguments in favor of software piracy, as I was sure someone would present a different view of what "stealing" means.
In short, I do agree with you, but I didn't agree with the reason you gave or the words you used.
-
Regarding Krice's example: no, you have not been robbed. It just means that the game sucks. You don't get money because the game sucks, not because of piracy. Would-be pirates probably would not buy the game anyway, the choice for them is not between playing the game with paying and playing the game without playing, but rather between playing the game without playing and not playing it at all. The corporation does not lose anything if they decide to play, as long as there are still other people who think that they should pay to play the game. Actually they gain, since the game becomes more well known. You should get money from what you are doing as your job, but only when you are doing something useful, rather than convincing authors, reviewers, users and random bystanders that you are doing something useful and taking money from all of them (this seems to be what some of the publishers actually do).
-
Software piracy is an injustice, but it's a different injustice than stealing.
It's stealing. I'm sorry, but that's how it is. Now, imagine yourself creating a cool commercial game that no one buys (but pirates play it). What happened? You just got robbed. You would have got money, but you didn't because of piracy. Sucks, doesn't it?
LIEK HELL!!!!! >:(
Go find a goddamned definition of stealing, like here http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/steal or in another, more reputable dictionary since people tend to not to trust in wiki sources.
Stealing deprives the victim of the stolen good. Which piracy DOESN'T. Also, loss of benefits != damage. The complete loss of the ability to make benefits, or at least more than 50% of it, can be considered a damage. Not earning $ 18000 out of several foreseeable millions of income, because of unauthorized copying, isn't damage. It's having a too optimistic prediction.
You just said it yourself, "You would have got money". Would. Not had. A fortiori, nobody can rob you of what you don't have yet, because that's a logical impossibility.
Charging 70€ for a PS3 game (for instance), now that's stealing, I don't care who many people are working behind, every media bussiness is making an obscene profit out of videos, videogames, music, or whatever.
Also, think about this: Do you think the PSX or the NDS would have ever accomplished their outstanding success without being easily hacked systems? There are people who buy a console only because they are going to mod chip or flash it or whatever. Which, in that case, is a net gain for the company. Do you think that the vulnerability factors in the first GTA for PSP, or in a certain Zelda title for WII, don't boost their sales figures?
Organized piracy is a thing: you're taking something that's not yours and making a profit of it, plus it falls into organized crime. Private piracy is a different thing altogether.
Do you really want us to feel bad for Microsoft for pirating a windoze copy, which costs in the order of 100€ in a store? Do you want us to feel bad for pirating Adobe Photoshop, which costs the FREAKING amount of 1.001.82€??! Do you want us to feel bad for downloading a music CD from fifteen years ago which we aren't going to buy anyway? Do you want us to feel bad for watching on the internet series that are already being aired on TV, or even worse, that aren't being aired anymore? Do you want me to feel bad for refusing to pay 7€ for going to a theater to see the latest canned franchise movie?
Krice, I would be *very* surprised if you hadn't, ever, copied anything without paying. Copying, fuck, COPYING!!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeTybKL1pM4 I can unauthorizedly copy your latest CAD program, I can't copy your diesel CAR. So please go and throw away every VHS and audio cassette that's growing dust in your house, or you will corrupt your immortal soul and deprive the company honchos of the whores and coke they crave to lengthen their undeath.
Piracy is worng? Piracy is wrong? The FUCK is piracy wrong. As long as the companies keep making obscene money from selling plastic disks which cost them probably CENTS, I'm all for piracy. They don't make enough money? Well, tough luck, I DON'T MAKE ENOUGH MONEY TO BUY THEIR OVERPRICED PRODUCTS, EITHER. If I had a five-figure income I would take the trouble to go and buy them, instead of only being able to buy second-hand material and cheapo newspaper releases.
Companies don't want to offer their products at reasonable prices? Well, WHIM OF THE MARKET, if your product doesn't appeal to the audiences enough, swallow it like a man. It's the power and money-hungry companies, along with their political puppets, that have thrown us into the current crisis, so I say SCREW THEM.
God damn it all!
edit: Now go and erase my post for breaking forum rules. That I would find reasonable.
-
The battle is joined!
LIEK HELL!!!!! >:(
Please leave us keep our heads, shall we? There is no reason that we can not discuss this reasonably.
Go find a goddamned definition of stealing, like here http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/steal or in another, more reputable dictionary since people tend to not to trust in wiki sources.
This, Krice, is exactly the type of confusion I sought to avert.
Stealing deprives the victim of the stolen good. Which piracy DOESN'T. Also, loss of benefits != damage. The complete loss of the ability to make benefits, or at least more than 50% of it, can be considered a damage. Not earning $ 18000 out of several foreseeable millions of income, because of unauthorized copying, isn't damage. It's having a too optimistic prediction.
If those benefits were owed the company, it is still a wrong, whether you call it damage or not.
You just said it yourself, "You would have got money". Would. Not had. A fortiori, nobody can rob you of what you don't have yet, because that's a logical impossibility.
Which is exactly why it isn't stealing by your definition, but it isn't the less an injustice.
Charging 70€ for a PS3 game (for instance), now that's stealing, I don't care who many people are working behind, every media bussiness is making an obscene profit out of videos, videogames, music, or whatever.
Perhaps it is you that should look up the definition of theft! Charging for one's goods could never be considered stealing, as those goods did not belong to the public in the first place. If you do not think that their products are worth the price, do not buy them. Your unwillingness to pay does not justify breaking the agreements you make.
Also, think about this: Do you think the PSX or the NDS would have ever accomplished their outstanding success without being easily hacked systems? There are people who buy a console only because they are going to mod chip or flash it or whatever. Which, in that case, is a net gain for the company. Do you think that the vulnerability factors in the first GTA for PSP, or in a certain Zelda title for WII, don't boost their sales figures?
This is all irrelevant. We are not discussing "easily hacked" systems, and any benefits that would be yielded the company from piracy (and you're just guessing that there are such), does not make piracy less a wrong.
Organized piracy is a thing: you're taking something that's not yours and making a profit of it, plus it falls into organized crime. Private piracy is a different thing altogether.
You must clarify this statement, for the very definition of piracy is unauthorized copying and distribution.
Do you really want us to feel bad for Microsoft for pirating a windoze copy, which costs in the order of 100€ in a store? Do you want us to feel bad for pirating Adobe Photoshop, which costs the FREAKING amount of 1.001.82€??! Do you want us to feel bad for downloading a music CD from fifteen years ago which we aren't going to buy anyway? Do you want us to feel bad for watching on the internet series that are already being aired on TV, or even worse, that aren't being aired anymore? Do you want me to feel bad for refusing to pay 7€ for going to a theater to see the latest canned franchise movie?
Yes, we do. Here is a counter question: do you really want us to feel sorry for you because you don't want to buy those products?
Krice, I would be *very* surprised if you hadn't, ever, copied anything without paying. Copying, fuck, COPYING!!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeTybKL1pM4 I can unauthorizedly copy your latest CAD program, I can't copy your diesel CAR. So please go and throw away every VHS and audio cassette that's growing dust in your house, or you will corrupt your immortal soul and deprive the company honchos of the whores and coke they crave to lengthen their undeath.
What Krice has or has not done is irrelevant, for, if Krice had committed piracy, it would not be the less a wrong. The rest of this just doesn't seem to make any perceptible sense.
Piracy is worng? Piracy is wrong? The FUCK is piracy wrong. As long as the companies keep making obscene money from selling plastic disks which cost them probably CENTS, I'm all for piracy.
Your justification for piracy is that you think the companies make too much money? Very well, how much is too much in your opinion? You would deprive them of what is theirs by right just because they make more money than you do?
They don't make enough money? Well, tough luck, I DON'T MAKE ENOUGH MONEY TO BUY THEIR OVERPRICED PRODUCTS, EITHER. If I had a five-figure income I would take the trouble to go and buy them, instead of only being able to buy second-hand material and cheapo newspaper releases.
Poverty doesn't give one leave to take what he will from the rest of society. Such is gravely arrogant thinking.
Companies don't want to offer their products at reasonable prices?
Tell me, who decides what is a reasonable price? You? Why not let consumers decide? If they do not consider it worth the price, why do they purchase it?
Well, WHIM OF THE MARKET, if your product doesn't appeal to the audiences enough, swallow it like a man. It's the power and money-hungry companies, along with their political puppets, that have thrown us into the current crisis, so I say SCREW THEM.
If one cannot afford their product, he should swallow it like a man. Also, I'm afraid you shall have to tell us which crisis you mean and evidence that companies have thrown us into it.
God damn it all!
edit: Now go and erase my post for breaking forum rules. That I would find reasonable.
Most of what derrogatory things you said was directed at corporations and not a forum member, so I think you're fine. No need to get upset, Psiweapon. We can have a discussion on the matter without getting hot under the collar, so to speak.
-
I've taken the sentence about "piracy isn't piracy" from GNU site:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html)
So perhaps FSF-fans (I'm not really FSF-fan, but I like their philosophy) should agree with that.
It's a pity that content-creators are losing their possible money, but freedom of information IMHO worth it - because otherwise we are going to a very dark future, described in cyberpunk novels.
-
I've taken the sentence about "piracy isn't piracy" from GNU site:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html)
So perhaps FSF-fans (I'm not really FSF-fan, but I like their philosophy) should agree with that.
They should only agree if it is a reasonable philosophy. I do not agree with many pieces of their philosophy, but, as I am running GNU/Linux, I certainly appreciate their contribution to free software. I like and use free software, but I do not think that I am owed free software by anyone.
It's a pity that content-creators are losing their possible money, but freedom of information IMHO worth it
I could come to agree with this, but I think that freedom of information should not be sought by violating the terms of agreements. Are we to commit injustices against a few for the sake of all? I think not.
...because otherwise we are going to a very dark future, described in cyberpunk novels.
If you wish to convince us that such a future is coming, you shall need to provide us with evidence that it will come if we do not resort to piracy. I would think that the existance of free alternatives to proprietary software would be evidence that such is not going to happen.
-
I could come to agree with this, but I think that freedom of information should not be sought by violating the terms of agreements. Are we to commit injustices against a few for the sake of all? I think not.
I don't violate the agreements, I just don't bother to read them :)
If you wish to convince us that such a future is coming, you shall need to provide us with evidence that it will come if we do not resort to piracy. I would think that the existance of free alternatives to proprietary software would be evidence that such is not going to happen.
Of course you are right and I don't have any proofs - this is just my humble opinion. Copy-likers vs. anti-Copyrighters is a kind of holy war where both sides are right and at the same time both sides are wrong. And of course all this discussion is off-topic. I just really wanted to know opinion of Krice about this question.
-
I don't want to read those long bullshit messages. Just telling that you guys create a company, make commercial level games and then give them to pirates for free. We'll talk then about what is wrong in this picture. Stupid homos.
-
[...]
Copy-likers vs. anti-Copyrighters is a kind of holy war where both sides are right and at the same time both sides are wrong.
[...]
That is exactly the issue here, at least with me. I have gone on a holier-than-thou rant, fueled by theological hatred (which is something that can be triggered by far more things that religions)
And that is wrong.
I present my apologies, in general, and specially to Krice, whom I quoted, when I could have posted the same without targeting him, he is entitled to his opinion and at least, he has legal ground to stand on.
But still, my previous post represents what I believe in about this issue, and srsly guise, I couldn't care less about big companies and their benefits. Why? Because they already care about themselves too much, to have *others* take care of their preferences. Of course, for persons who have a vested interest in them (like e.g. being an employee, no need to go to the financial rank) it's perfectly understandable that they worry about the unauthorized copying issue.
And probably, I believe in a kind of justice different from some people here. Well, to be honest probably we all have a different view of what justice is.
I'm *tired* of all the hyper-capitalist shit we're experiencing lately. When a business has reached a certain point in profitability, the only way to boost it is to provide a worse service. Banks play casino with everyone's money, lose, and then governments are supposed to back them with MOAR MONIES.
The big companies, with the help of their political puppets (or collaborators) will eat away every one of our rights and public benefits if left to their own resources. I belive in the public sector, social welfare and a number of other things I've always lived with, which are slowly being eroded by the passion of privatization (does that word even exist?)
I'm very happy to still be able to download free stuffs from the internet. In fact, it rocks my socks, because it's miraculous, and Square and Sony and Nintendo and a host of other entertainment media companies are still alive and kicking, and aren't going to die any day of piracy-caused starvation, no matter how much they try to convince us to the contrary. But we're not only talking videogames, we're talking about music - with mafia-like organizations like the puñetera SGAE here, which charges you for having a TV in your pub, or a radio in your barber shop, when these are things that cost 0 to everybody to begin with (excluding cable and power fees).
Unauthorized copying is an injustice? It goes against my intuition, but I'm willing to concede it for the argument's sake.
Earning a salary that could feed 500.000 of your retired employees, for the rest of their lives, is an injustice?
Of fucking course yes. At least in my book. And that's why I have no pity with people in such a position, their brands and their products.
Trust me, I buy unnecessary commercial shit WAY less than your average Joe, and ARRRR PIRATIN'!!!! is not the only reason.
-
But still, my previous post represents what I believe in about this issue, and srsly guise, I couldn't care less about big companies and their benefits. Why? Because they already care about themselves too much, to have *others* take care of their preferences. Of course, for persons who have a vested interest in them (like e.g. being an employee, no need to go to the financial rank) it's perfectly understandable that they worry about the unauthorized copying issue.
Do you see the irony here? You say that they care too much for themselves, but only because they will not freely give you what they have created.
And probably, I believe in a kind of justice different from some people here. Well, to be honest probably we all have a different view of what justice is.
Certainly, but your sense of justice seems to be riddled with double standards and inconsistencies.
I'm *tired* of all the hyper-capitalist shit we're experiencing lately. When a business has reached a certain point in profitability, the only way to boost it is to provide a worse service.
You shall have to provide evidence that a business must be run this way, for I doubt you know much about business, save that you percieve it to be an evil.
Banks play casino with everyone's money, lose, and then governments are supposed to back them with MOAR MONIES.
What does this have to do with software piracy?
The big companies, with the help of their political puppets (or collaborators) will eat away every one of our rights and public benefits if left to their own resources. I belive in the public sector, social welfare and a number of other things I've always lived with, which are slowly being eroded by the passion of privatization (does that word even exist?)
Why do you suppose that public officials are more trustworthy than private companies? At least companies give you the option to simply not purchase their products. Taxes are compulsory, and, if you don't like how they spend it, you can do nothing to stop it.
I'm very happy to still be able to download free stuffs from the internet. In fact, it rocks my socks, because it's miraculous, and Square and Sony and Nintendo and a host of other entertainment media companies are still alive and kicking, and aren't going to die any day of piracy-caused starvation, no matter how much they try to convince us to the contrary.
Do you honestly think that the fact a company can survive piracy mean that piracy is not unjust? Would you steal from a man because he could afford it?
But we're not only talking videogames, we're talking about music - with mafia-like organizations like the puñetera SGAE here, which charges you for having a TV in your pub, or a radio in your barber shop, when these are things that cost 0 to everybody to begin with (excluding cable and power fees).
I'm not really sure what this means.
Unauthorized copying is an injustice? It goes against my intuition, but I'm willing to concede it for the argument's sake.
What do you mean "for the argument's sake"? Is it or is it not unjust?
Earning a salary that could feed 500.000 of your retired employees, for the rest of their lives, is an injustice?
No. If they have provided a product for which people have chosen to pay, why call it injustice?
Of fucking course yes. At least in my book. And that's why I have no pity with people in such a position, their brands and their products.
Don't blame them. They have not forced anyone to buy anything. Regard their customers with contempt, for it is they that have willingly supplied the companies with the money they have.
I mean no malice, Psiweapon, but I really must challenge your views.
-
The battle is joined!
LIEK HELL!!!!! >:(
Please leave us keep our heads, shall we? There is no reason that we can not discuss this reasonably.
The truth.
Go find a goddamned definition of stealing, like here http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/steal or in another, more reputable dictionary since people tend to not to trust in wiki sources.
This, Krice, is exactly the type of confusion I sought to avert.
What confusion? That piracy IS or ISN'T stealing? Piracy doesn't deprive anyone of anything, except companies of a part of their predicted income. Income which was only predicted and never came to fruition, and as such, can't be stolen, since it doesn't exist.
Stealing deprives the victim of the stolen good. Which piracy DOESN'T. Also, loss of benefits != damage. The complete loss of the ability to make benefits, or at least more than 50% of it, can be considered a damage. Not earning $ 18000 out of several foreseeable millions of income, because of unauthorized copying, isn't damage. It's having a too optimistic prediction.
If those benefits were owed the company, it is still a wrong, whether you call it damage or not.
It's illegal. Killing people is both immoral and illegal, but in some modern states the death penalty exists, which I find barbaric. Morality and legality are not one and the same.
You just said it yourself, "You would have got money". Would. Not had. A fortiori, nobody can rob you of what you don't have yet, because that's a logical impossibility.
Which is exactly why it isn't stealing by your definition, but it isn't the less an injustice.
By terms of distributive justice, it's actually better than fair. It's even pareto efficient: nobody gets worse, and at least somebody gets better.
Charging 70€ for a PS3 game (for instance), now that's stealing, I don't care who many people are working behind, every media bussiness is making an obscene profit out of videos, videogames, music, or whatever.
Perhaps it is you that should look up the definition of theft! Charging for one's goods could never be considered stealing, as those goods did not belong to the public in the first place. If you do not think that their products are worth the price, do not buy them. Your unwillingness to pay does not justify breaking the agreements you make.
Yes, it's not theft, I was speaking metaphorically, but the agreement is made upon purchasing the digital media, also, the whole "you're not buying this disk you're buying a license to use it" is a legalese contraption that limits your ownership of a physical item.
Also, think about this: Do you think the PSX or the NDS would have ever accomplished their outstanding success without being easily hacked systems? There are people who buy a console only because they are going to mod chip or flash it or whatever. Which, in that case, is a net gain for the company. Do you think that the vulnerability factors in the first GTA for PSP, or in a certain Zelda title for WII, don't boost their sales figures?
This is all irrelevant. We are not discussing "easily hacked" systems, and any benefits that would be yielded the company from piracy (and you're just guessing that there are such), does not make piracy less a wrong.
I don't concur. I know many people who wouldn't have bought a lot of gaming systems so happily if it weren't for their vulnerabilities. And probably, so do you (knowing people like that).
Organized piracy is a thing: you're taking something that's not yours and making a profit of it, plus it falls into organized crime. Private piracy is a different thing altogether.
You must clarify this statement, for the very definition of piracy is unauthorized copying and distribution.
With intent of black market monetary profit. That's the difference.
Do you really want us to feel bad for Microsoft for pirating a windoze copy, which costs in the order of 100€ in a store? Do you want us to feel bad for pirating Adobe Photoshop, which costs the FREAKING amount of 1.001.82€??! Do you want us to feel bad for downloading a music CD from fifteen years ago which we aren't going to buy anyway? Do you want us to feel bad for watching on the internet series that are already being aired on TV, or even worse, that aren't being aired anymore? Do you want me to feel bad for refusing to pay 7€ for going to a theater to see the latest canned franchise movie?
Yes, we do. Here is a counter question: do you really want us to feel sorry for you because you don't want to buy those products?
No, I don't.
Krice, I would be *very* surprised if you hadn't, ever, copied anything without paying. Copying, fuck, COPYING!!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeTybKL1pM4 I can unauthorizedly copy your latest CAD program, I can't copy your diesel CAR. So please go and throw away every VHS and audio cassette that's growing dust in your house, or you will corrupt your immortal soul and deprive the company honchos of the whores and coke they crave to lengthen their undeath.
What Krice has or has not done is irrelevant, for, if Krice had committed piracy, it would not be the less a wrong. The rest of this just doesn't seem to make any perceptible sense.
Okay.
Piracy is worng? Piracy is wrong? The FUCK is piracy wrong. As long as the companies keep making obscene money from selling plastic disks which cost them probably CENTS, I'm all for piracy.
Your justification for piracy is that you think the companies make too much money? Very well, how much is too much in your opinion? You would deprive them of what is theirs by right just because they make more money than you do?
It's theirs by right because they hold sway to determine what rights they have. The problem isn't that they make more money, the problem is that it's blown out of proportion to the effort and money they put in. It may not be unjust, but it is unfair. Do you know that with a flat benefit rate of 20% for everyone, for every transaction, people would still be able to actually become rich?
They don't make enough money? Well, tough luck, I DON'T MAKE ENOUGH MONEY TO BUY THEIR OVERPRICED PRODUCTS, EITHER. If I had a five-figure income I would take the trouble to go and buy them, instead of only being able to buy second-hand material and cheapo newspaper releases.
Poverty doesn't give one leave to take what he will from the rest of society. Such is gravely arrogant thinking.
I'm not taking what I want from the rest of the society (since I'm not depriving anyone of anything), I'm duplicating for my personal use a digital resource.
Companies don't want to offer their products at reasonable prices?
Tell me, who decides what is a reasonable price? You? Why not let consumers decide? If they do not consider it worth the price, why do they purchase it?
Except they don't decide the price, the price is decided by the seller. Sometimes not even the seller, but the provider: You can't sell a PS3 any price you want if you own a retail store, you know? You have to keep at a fixed price. They purchase it because they want it, and because they can afford it, not because they think it's worth the price.
Well, WHIM OF THE MARKET, if your product doesn't appeal to the audiences enough, swallow it like a man. It's the power and money-hungry companies, along with their political puppets, that have thrown us into the current crisis, so I say SCREW THEM.
If one cannot afford their product, he should swallow it like a man. Also, I'm afraid you shall have to tell us which crisis you mean and evidence that companies have thrown us into it.
If you can't see this for yourself, I'm not going to spell it out. Sorry =(
God damn it all!
edit: Now go and erase my post for breaking forum rules. That I would find reasonable.
Most of what derrogatory things you said was directed at corporations and not a forum member, so I think you're fine. No need to get upset, Psiweapon. We can have a discussion on the matter without getting hot under the collar, so to speak.
It could be construed as encouragement of illegal behavior ;)
But still, my previous post represents what I believe in about this issue, and srsly guise, I couldn't care less about big companies and their benefits. Why? Because they already care about themselves too much, to have *others* take care of their preferences. Of course, for persons who have a vested interest in them (like e.g. being an employee, no need to go to the financial rank) it's perfectly understandable that they worry about the unauthorized copying issue.
Do you see the irony here? You say that they care too much for themselves, but only because they will not freely give you what they have created.
Not because they won't freely give me what they have created, but because they abuse their already bloated power.
And probably, I believe in a kind of justice different from some people here. Well, to be honest probably we all have a different view of what justice is.
Certainly, but your sense of justice seems to be riddled with double standards and inconsistencies.
Opposite positions tend to mirror one another.
I'm *tired* of all the hyper-capitalist shit we're experiencing lately. When a business has reached a certain point in profitability, the only way to boost it is to provide a worse service.
You shall have to provide evidence that a business must be run this way, for I doubt you know much about business, save that you percieve it to be an evil.
The evil of business is proportional to its size. Think the faulty vessel of one of the Fukushima reactors. It was faulty, but very expensive, so it was put in place in order to save costs.
Banks play casino with everyone's money, lose, and then governments are supposed to back them with MOAR MONIES.
What does this have to do with software piracy?
Repression of software piracy stems from the overzealous protection of the entertainment industry, which is a sin of the current capitalist governments.
The big companies, with the help of their political puppets (or collaborators) will eat away every one of our rights and public benefits if left to their own resources. I belive in the public sector, social welfare and a number of other things I've always lived with, which are slowly being eroded by the passion of privatization (does that word even exist?)
Why do you suppose that public officials are more trustworthy than private companies? At least companies give you the option to simply not purchase their products. Taxes are compulsory, and, if you don't like how they spend it, you can do nothing to stop it.
Do I have to suppose the contrary? Taxes are compulsory, but are spent on things I and my fellow citizen can enjoy freely afterwards. Even if they couldn't afford it, were them market offered. Taxes aren't in place for the one who can pay them, but for the one who needs that which the taxes pay.
I'm very happy to still be able to download free stuffs from the internet. In fact, it rocks my socks, because it's miraculous, and Square and Sony and Nintendo and a host of other entertainment media companies are still alive and kicking, and aren't going to die any day of piracy-caused starvation, no matter how much they try to convince us to the contrary.
Do you honestly think that the fact a company can survive piracy mean that piracy is not unjust? Would you steal from a man because he could afford it?
Yes, I honestly think it. A company is not a man, and this is bringing again the piracy !=/= theft issue.
But we're not only talking videogames, we're talking about music - with mafia-like organizations like the puñetera SGAE here, which charges you for having a TV in your pub, or a radio in your barber shop, when these are things that cost 0 to everybody to begin with (excluding cable and power fees).
I'm not really sure what this means.
It means that you have to pay a tax (the state's privilege) to a private company, for letting your customers hear your radio (a radio you already paid and which is airing a broadcast)
Unauthorized copying is an injustice? It goes against my intuition, but I'm willing to concede it for the argument's sake.
What do you mean "for the argument's sake"? Is it or is it not unjust?
An agreement, however partial, can't be made without the parts making. If you want me to clarify it, even more, to me it feels like a deserved injustice. Companies aren't people, and as such cannot suffer.
Earning a salary that could feed 500.000 of your retired employees, for the rest of their lives, is an injustice?
No. If they have provided a product for which people have chosen to pay, why call it injustice?
Trying to better your social standing and income is fair competition. Making your life worth several thousands of other lives is humiliation. And we all live in this system, even you and me. If company and governmental honchos were each half as rich, everyone in the world could be several times as rich as before. Hell, we could all work three hours a day and live in paradise. It's the obscenity of it all what is hard to get for the average citizen who defends that system. But it's clear for me that it's main beneficiaries not only get it, but bask in it.
Of fucking course yes. At least in my book. And that's why I have no pity with people in such a position, their brands and their products.
Don't blame them. They have not forced anyone to buy anything. Regard their customers with contempt, for it is they that have willingly supplied the companies with the money they have.
With contempt, after they've had their minds bombarded with a thousand and one forged promises of satisfaction, broadcasted in the hundreds of TV and radio stations, and plastered everywhere? What should I regard those directives with, admiration? I refuse.
I mean no malice, Psiweapon, but I really must challenge your views.
No malice perceived, at all. You're doing what you must, and so am I. In that, we agree.
edit: I missed one answer.
-
It is probably too late, but I have started a new thread so that we need not continue to hijack this one for our debate.
http://roguetemple.com/forums/index.php?topic=1543.0
-
Ok, after playing Zangband for hundredth time, I decided lets see what do the commercial FRPs of today look like. So I tried DAO DA II, and ME(2).
I am quite curious: As a non-fan of Dragon Age, did you feel that DA2 was better or worse than DA:O?
I have downloaded both DA1 and 2 on torrents ;D Ssh! But I like DA1 better. I can talk to my companions anytime I want.